Category: Uncategorized

The fake interview continues, with a focus on foreign policy.

C: I want to start by asking you a conceptual question. I know that you, like most people, see China as America’s most dangerous potential adversary. Is your concern about China based on foreign policy realism or a Huntingtonian position on a culture clash?

V: I don’t think it makes a difference in this case. China is the biggest threat, period.

C: Let me phrase the question in a different way. Assume that the UK became America’s biggest rival in the world. Would you have the same level of concern that you do now?

V: Of course not.

C: And your position is not based on the nature of the Chinese regime. You, like Trump, have made it clear that the Chinese can have as authoritarian government as they like; it’s what the government does externally that matters.

V: True.

C: That makes you a Huntingtonian. What is it about Chinese culture that strikes you as being so scary and alien? Remember, Xi believes in traditional values just as much as you do. He supports men over women, has no patience for LGBTQ people, thinks the Chinese need to have more children, and supports efforts for economic self-sufficiency. That’s you, in a nutshell.

V: The Chinese aren’t Christians. They believe in astrology, ancestor worship, and lots of weird crap. That makes them scary.

C: Ramaswamy thinks we should give Putin what he wants in order to make him an ally against the Chinese. Do you find that plausible?

V: Not really. Putin is a killer and an imperialist who can’t be trusted to keep his word. He’s not really a cultural ally of America.

C: If your opinion of him is so harsh, why do you oppose aid to Ukraine?

V: I don’t have any illusions about the nature of the Russian regime. It’s a question of allocating resources. We can’t stop both Putin and Xi. The Europeans should deal with Putin. Anyway, Putin can’t afford to take all of Ukraine, so I don’t see him going any farther than he already has.

C: The Poles and Lithuanians don’t agree.

V: They’re wrong.

C: Is it fair to say that you think China should be contained?

V: Yes.

C: That can’t be done without the support of our allies. And yet, you and Trump are supporting measures–most notably, universal tariffs–that will piss them off and invite retaliation. If Chinese containment is such a priority, why would you do that?

V: Our so-called allies have nowhere to go. We won’t protect them against Chinese or Russian aggression if they don’t fall into line. That includes choosing not to retaliate against our tariffs.

C: So you accept Trump’s view that our alliances are really a protection racket?

V: I prefer to call it a fair quid pro quo.

C: What if our friends tell you and Trump to pound sand and move towards China and Russia?

V: That’s a risk I’m willing to take. America is the indispensable nation for both economic and military purposes. If you want to chart your own path without American subsidies, that’s your business. You’ll have to pay for your own security, and you won’t have access to American markets.

C: Would you scrap Biden’s security agreement with Australia and the UK?

V: That’s up to Trump.

C: Will a Trump-Vance government defend Taiwan?

V: If the Taiwanese provide adequate compensation, yes.

C: What about countries that prefer not to take sides, such as India?

V: You’re either with us or against us. India will have to choose.

C: And if they pick China, which is realistically possible? What happens to the containment plan?

V: They have a border with China that isn’t secure. When push comes to shove, they will pick us over the Chinese, even if they’re paying tariffs.

C: What about the rest of the Third World? The Chinese are working hard with both money and diplomacy to gain allies there.

V: For the most part, those countries are more trouble than they’re worth. If American investors want to put money there, fine. We’re not going to push it.

C: Will a Trump-Vance government go to war with Mexico over drugs? Trump talks about it all the time.

V: The Mexicans will give us whatever we want when push comes to shove. We have the leverage. They have to do what we say. There won’t be a war.

C: Don’t you think that a trade war with Mexico would have American victims, as well?

V: We’ll compensate them with the tariff proceeds. The Mexicans don’t have the money to do that. They can’t win a trade war with Uncle Sam.

C: Thank you for your time.

Trump and Vance are attacking Tim Walz from every possible angle. Vance is arguing that Walz misstated his National Guard record and resigned to avoid service in Iraq. Trump, for his part, insists that it matters that Walz was just an assistant coach. Will these attacks make a difference?

No, because the point of talking about Walz’ coaching career and military service is not to prove that he was Vince Lombardi or Sgt. York. Walz is on the ticket because he is a character who shares lots of traits with average people in the Midwest. He is, to use the fashionable term, “relatable.” The Trump-Vance attacks do not touch that.

It should go without saying that nothing in Trump’s record (including his personal conduct) suggests any allegiance to the Godly Society. And yet, he chose a running mate who is its most conspicuous proponent, probably to his regret at this point. Why did he do it?

Part of it was probably personal chemistry. Part of it was Vance’s proven ability to own the libs. Part of it was overconfidence. But the most important part was Vance’s strong support for tariffs, although the two candidates have different views on their purpose. For Vance, they are the catalyst for a revolutionary change to the economy that will make the Godly Society possible; for Trump, they are a way to revive dying industries that used to employ lots of brawny men and to create a slush fund by which he can reward his friends and punish his enemies.

If Trump wins, he will get his slush fund. In all other respects, both members of the ticket are likely to be disappointed.

Only the reliably wrong Rich Lowry could argue that a man who had sex with a porn star, covered it up with a hush money payment, and then tried to cover up the coverup with fraudulent statements on documents has an edge over Harris on “character.” Of course, Lowry doesn’t define “character” the way you and I and the rest of the world does. For him, “character” means projecting strength, which in turn means never flip-flopping on the issues.

Even on those ridiculous terms, the man who dramatically changed his positions on Tik-Tok, abortion, and electric cars, to name just a few, has his own problems with flip-flopping. Of course, Trump would argue in response that his flip-flops show strength, because his acolytes then follow suit without raising questions. In other words, he’s Louis XIV; he’s strong enough to say and do whatever he wants with no fear of the consequences, whereas Harris is constrained by her own words.

In reality, Trump is only consistent in his desire to follow his own self-interest. That’s the other absurd part of Lowry’s formula; the billionaire former casino owner is not more concerned with the welfare of the average American than the former McDonalds employee.

Trump’s position on climate change is intellectually ludicrous and inconsistent with conditions that Americans experience every day. And yet, Biden never found a way to make him pay for it, and Harris seems disinclined to try. It is a constant source of frustration for me. Why is this happening?

I think there are two reasons. First, even though Trump’s position is at odds with public sentiment as a whole, it resonates with some swing voters–in particular, auto workers in Michigan–who will have a disproportionate say in the outcome of the election. Second, Harris may believe that the heavy lifting on climate is already done with the passage of the IRA, so there is nothing in the future to talk about.

Harris continues to tie Trump to Project 2025 even though the man on golf cart has repeatedly and loudly attempted to distance himself from the document. Is it fair for her to do so, and will it work?

The answer to the first question is yes, because: the document was written by a group of people with very strong ties to Trump; parts of it are completely consistent with statements he has made over the years; and he has never indicated which parts of it he disagrees with, although it is safe to assume that the section on reproductive rights probably fits that bill. In any event, Trump lies virtually every time he opens his mouth. Why would any sane person rely on his promises this time around?

The answer to the second question is also yes, but with a caveat; fact checkers who are foolish enough to accept Trump’s repudiation of the document at face value will say she is lying, which will reduce her credibility on other issues. It will be important for her to explain why she feels entitled to talk about Project 2025 during the debate before she actually does.

The Democrats are a liberal party; they believe in removing the legal and practical barriers to legitimate individual choices. Some families would like to have more children but are prevented from doing so by soaring costs. Hence, the need for a larger child tax credit.

The GOP, on the other hand, is split. The majority consists of right-wing liberals, who support the right of women to choose their number of offspring but put a higher priority on limiting the size and cost of government than on increasing the size of families. The minority, represented most conspicuously by J.D. Vance, sees tariffs and deportations as the principal means by which the Godly Society can be recreated. More children will be the inevitable result of the Godly Society. The child tax credit, while somewhat helpful, is at best a distraction in their eyes; it may do some good in the short run, but it props up the unholy status quo, which tolerates the illegitimate choice of limiting family size, in the long run.

If you were wondering why a party that purports to be “pro-family” opposed the tax credit, look no further than that.

The supposedly pro-family GOP shut down the increase in the child tax credit a short time ago. J.D. Vance, Mr. Childless Cat Lady himself, didn’t even bother to vote. Is this evidence of his hypocrisy on family issues?

Not exactly, if you understand his ultimate objectives. For Vance, the goal is the Godly Society, as I have defined it in previous posts. Having more children–the right kind of children–is the natural consequence of the Godly Society. The child tax credit doesn’t lead us to the Godly Society; it is just putting a band-aid on a broken back. As a result, it wasn’t worth the effort.

In other words, Vance isn’t exactly a hypocrite; he’s an extremist social conservative who is doing his best to conceal his extremism, because he knows it won’t fly with the American public. It has to be introduced by stealth and then imposed by force.

Every day, it seems, I read another story about a Biden administrative initiative that has been blocked by a federal court. From student loan forgiveness to climate change mitigation to transgender rights to gun regulations to immigration reform, the lower courts, mostly but not exclusively in the Fifth Circuit, are making sure that the blue team agenda is stuck in the mud. The Supreme Court is always there as a backstop, too, thanks largely to Trump and his appointees.

It’s good that the Democrats are filled with joy, but the fact of the matter is that the McConnell Project will prevent them from exercising power even if they win. Legislation–other than through negotiations over the expiration of the Trump tax cuts–will be impossible due to the filibuster, and anything the courts view as a major administrative change will run aground almost immediately. As a result, judicial reform is going to be a major topic in the next Democratic administration, whether in 2025 or afterwards.

Beyonce didn’t show, but otherwise, the DNC was a complete success. What are the next potential inflection points for the campaign?

Hold on to your hat between September 10 and the 18th. The debate is scheduled for the 10th. Harris needs to use her considerable legal skills to take Trump apart and keep him looking scattered and small. On the 18th, the Fed is expected to lower interest rates, which will give a boost to the Harris campaign. And the same day, Justice Merchan may sentence Trump on the fraudulent documents charge. In the past, Trump has profited politically from his appearances in court, because the base buys into his martyrdom narrative. This time, the audience will be, not the base, but undecided voters motivated primarily by economic self-interest, and the outcome will be very different.

It’s official: Harris is running for Biden’s second term. That’s OK! Biden’s agenda and accomplishments were never unpopular; it was the man himself that the public disliked, mostly because they thought he was too old. That problem has now been remedied.

The difficult task for Harris is to run both as an incumbent and a change agent–to take credit for what the administration got right, and to distance herself from the unpopular parts. She can do this–and is doing it–by being Biden on substance and herself on style.

If you don’t believe me, ask Trump; he’s been presenting himself as a Reactionary in style and a PBP on substance for years.

I don’t see any reason to believe that Harris disagrees in any significant way with Biden’s approach to the war. But what if she wins, and the war continues to drag on? Will she agree to some sort of major escalation in order to break the deadlock? Conversely, will she nod to American war-weariness and put more pressure on the Ukrainians to settle?

I honestly don’t know the answers to those questions. I doubt she does, either.

Sure, he was unconventional. Angry, even. He would stop at nothing to get revenge for the wrongs done to him. He skirted the boundaries of the law, and sometimes went over it. But he was just what America needed when it had turned into a dystopia overrun by enemies both foreign and domestic. Only he had the strength and the ruthlessness to save us from the overwhelming evil. And he did.

No, America was a beautiful, prosperous land, still full of promise. People of all sorts lived in harmony. The problem was an evil magician who afflicted them. A plucky, innocent young woman, with the help of her loyal friends, used her courage and her wit to defeat the evil one and brought back the golden age. Things went back to normal, and everyone rejoiced.

Yes, this campaign is a battle between two movies–“Batman” and “The Wizard of Oz.” Which do you prefer? As for me, I’m off the see the wizard.

Joe Biden, an old white guy from the East Coast, had no natural sympathy for tech companies. As a result, progressives who argued that the tech companies were monopolists gorging themselves at the expense of the public welfare had a willing listener in the White House. Harris, on the other hand, is younger, comes from San Francisco, and has friends in tech. Would her administration be different on this issue?

Possibly, for two reasons. First, in an increasingly protectionist world, it is going to be very tempting to view the big tech companies as American national champions. Second, the giants are starting to move out of their well-defined sphere of influence to compete with one another. That makes antitrust concerns less compelling.

The Harris plan to restrain grocery price increases falls well short of price controls. It was enough, however, to inspire Trump–a man who says he can cut electricity prices across the country in half, without describing how–to call Harris a communist.

Well, if Harris is a communist, then so was Richard Nixon. That would probably come as a surprise to Roger Stone, the unabashed right-wing admirer of both Nixon and Trump.