Category: Uncategorized

Planned Parenthood, that is.

PP is an issue that divides the Reactionaries and the PBPs.   The former loathe abortion unconditionally because it eliminates a necessary sanction on immoral sexual behavior;  the latter are more or less indifferent to the moral elements of abortion, but see the “War on Women” as a tactical mistake that may ultimately cost them the election and deprive them of tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

The Reactionaries are clearly getting restless.  As noted in a previous post, the PBPs have reaped almost all of the practical benefits from the PBP/Reactionary coalition.  Look for the Reactionaries to fight for a government shutdown over this issue on October 1, and for the PBPs to make a deal with the Democrats to avoid the shutdown, as usual.  That will lead to even greater conflict among the GOP presidential candidates, and more excitement at the debates.

1.  It has been demonstrated time after time that the support of white liberals alone is not sufficient to get the Democratic Party nomination.  I strongly suspect that Elizabeth Warren decided not to run largely because she is aware of that fact.  The Sanders candidacy is ultimately doomed because it has no appeal to the rest of the party.
2. I think it would be very useful if the Democrats had a candidate who would discuss the need to rethink and rework the welfare state in light of technological change (i.e., the “gig economy”) and globalization.  For example, does it really make sense in today’s world to tie the cost of Medicare and Social Security solely to the payment of wages?  And is it a good idea for Obamacare to include an employer mandate?  Sanders is too tied to the past to have this discussion.

The Democrat maverick named Bern.

To the left the whole country he’d turn.

Attacking the rich,

He would grumble and bitch

Their large incomes were mostly unearned.

 

 

Labor Day is so mid Twentieth Century.  Globalization, technological advances, and the shift to a more services-oriented economy have emasculated labor as a political power in this country, and pretty much throughout the world.  Today, if I can’t buy a machine to get my products out, I can just make a quick call to someone in China or India, and the problem goes away.

Today, we live in a more enlightened age, where it is universally recognized that the greatness of America was built, not on labor, but on the backs of risk-taking job creators.  As a result, I would propose to replace Labor Day with Capital Day, to feature the following:

1.  Capital Day will be a holiday on capital gains taxes, not a day off for workers.
2.  All regulations favoring workers over business owners, including the minimum wage, are suspended for the day.
3.  Parades celebrating local businessmen (theme:  “they built this”) will be held all over the country.
4. There will be a ticker tape parade for hedge fund managers and bond traders in Manhattan.
5. In schools all over America, children will be required to read “Atlas Shrugged” and recite from Mitt Romney’s 47 percent speech.

I made all of this up, of course.  Or did I?

 

We don’t need no transfer union.

We don’t need no refugees.

No desperate children at our borders.

Leaders, keep them people out.

Hey!  Leaders, keep them people out.

 

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

And so it goes, on and on, all over the world, with no end in sight.

 

 

 

The Chinese are having a huge military parade today to celebrate the victory of Communist forces over the Japanese colonialists in 1945.  Of course, there are a few small problems with this narrative:

1.  While the Chinese suffered horrific losses during the war and contributed to the anti-Japanese effort by tying up troops, the decisive blows were inflicted not by them, but by the Americans.
2. The Communist contribution to the war effort was relatively minimal.  The vast majority of the losses were borne by the Nationalists.

Oh, well.  I’m sure it was a great show.  And it was timely, too, in light of the government’s recent economic failures, which have to be causing consternation (and, in all likelihood, some infighting) at the highest levels of the Communist Party.

China is a one-party state, but that doesn’t mean that debate disappears–it is just driven underground.  Look for the following in the next few weeks:

1.  Don’t be surprised if we see some wag-the-dog nationalism in an effort to change the subject from the market correction.
2. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with the anti-corruption campaign.  If the number of “tigers” being prosecuted drops significantly, it will suggest that Xi’s support in the party has declined as a result of recent events.  If it increases, that could mean infighting has increased.  If nothing happens, then it is business as usual.

You’re Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP.  The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence failed by a fairly narrow margin, but you won a very substantial victory in the general election that followed.  Scottish independence within the EU is your ultimate objective.

David Cameron cannot rely on his hold on the Conservative Party to win the  EU referendum, so he is going to be calling for assistance from the leaders of the other parties.  Labour is a mess, and cannot be counted on for anything, which makes your position all the more important.  If the voters opt out of the EU, your argument for a second independence referendum becomes infinitely stronger.  Do you:

1. Give unconditional support to the government’s position to stay in the EU, and thereby damage your case for independence?
2. Oppose the government’s position in the interests of strengthening your argument for independence, and thereby expose yourself to allegations of opportunism and hypocrisy?
3. Attempt to barter your support for the referendum in exchange for new powers in Scotland, or even a second independence referendum?
4. Take an equivocal position in public and hope your supporters will understand they should vote tactically against EU membership?

I would bet on #3 or #4, but this will be very interesting.

There once was a PM named Dave.

The UK he worked hard to save.

But the SNP said

That the union was dead.

Will the Scots push it into the grave?

Republicans get the day off today.  A post regarding the EU referendum and what it means for Scottish independence will follow.

Historically, when the GOP wins an election, the PBPs get what they want out of the bargain–power, tax cuts, and deregulation.  Reactionaries, however, typically get some warm words on abortion, and, well, nothing else.

This is largely due to the fact that the PBP agenda can be accomplished fairly easily through our political system, whereas the Reactionary wish list includes items that require constitutional amendments or, in some cases, are actually outside the political realm (i.e., victory in the culture wars).  Nevertheless, this means that, in practice, Reactionary voters have been little more than cannon fodder for the PBP agenda.

Under these circumstances, is it surprising that the Reactionaries are getting restless?  Does it make sense for them to behave “responsibly” in the name of winning the next election when the only real winners are the PBPs?

Over time, I have come to believe that Eisenhower is severely underrated as a president, both for what he did and what he didn’t do.

What he did:   Extricated us from a bloody deadlock in Korea; enforced the Supreme Court’s mandate in Brown v. Board of Education (albeit reluctantly); and envisioned the Interstate Highway System, the benefits of which were enormous, and are taken for granted today.

What he didn’t do:  Dismantle the New Deal; cut what were extremely high taxes on wealthy people; start lots of new foreign wars.

Do you see any current GOP candidates who would meet this standard?  Me, neither.

Over the weekend, for some reason, I found myself thinking about a question I had on an exam over 30 years ago.  The test was on “Twelfth Night,” and the question was “Did Malvolio get what he deserved?”  I’m pretty sure I said yes, because he refused to be reconciled with the other characters at the end of the play, but it could reasonably go either way.

From that jumping-off point, I deconstructed centuries of Western thought about the condition of mankind into the following table:

Justice In the World                                     Arbitrary Outcomes

Optimism         Enlightenment philosophy/theology                    Comedy

Pessimism        Protestant sects                                                         Tragedy

“Comedy” falls under “Arbitrary Outcomes” because the characters behave foolishly, but receive a better outcome than they deserve.  In “Tragedy,” on the other hand, flawed but essentially admirable people are punished regardless of the purity of their intentions.  “Enlightenment philosophy/theology” would include Marxism, a range of 18th and 19th Century idealist philosophies, and some relatively new religious sects.  Any Protestant religion influenced by Calvinism would likely fall under Justice/Pessimism.

The thread uniting “Comedy” and “Tragedy” explains why it is possible for a single playwright to be proficient at both.

If you are an Enlightenment/Optimist in this country, you are almost certainly a liberal Democrat.  If you are a Protestant/Pessimist, you are probably a reactionary Republican.  The other two, politically, fall in the middle.

 

There are two world crises happening concurrently.  One of them involves a Russian invasion of a nearby country;  in the other, our traditional allies in the Middle East have responded with force to a new and dangerous military and ideological threat.  The US reaction to the first crisis is to do, essentially, nothing;  our outright opposition to the actions of our allies, including Israel, in the second crisis has damaged important and longstanding strategic relationships.

Is this Barack Obama on Ukraine and Syria in 2014?  Or is it that well-known Republican wimp, Dwight Eisenhower, on Hungary and Suez in 1956?

More thoughts on Eisenhower to follow.

There once was a guv’nor named John.

A purple state mandate he won.

He took Medicaid

For that sin he was flayed

Now his hopes of election are gone.

The candidate known as Scott Walker

Claimed he wasn’t much of a talker.

He said of the crisis

With Iraq and ISIS

“If Marco’s a hawk, then I’m hawker.”

There’s a bear in the woods.

He was pretty obnoxious in 2014.  Most notably, he decided to expand his range into Ukraine, thereby causing widespread chaos and misery.  This year, however, he has been much better behaved.  He hasn’t made any effort to gain more territory in Ukraine, he has started to become friendlier in Syria, and he was downright cuddly in Iran.

Has the bear learned its lesson?  Has he decided the tourists will give him more food if he stops growling at them?

It’s too early to tell.