Cromwell

“Rich Men North of Richmond” has been adopted as kind of a reactionary hymn by the GOP. It was even used as a premise in the first question asked at the August debate. The guy who wrote it denies that he favors the right, and if you take the song title literally, he could be telling the truth; after all, Rupert Murdoch and the editorial board of the WSJ are rich men north of Richmond, too. Should we take him at his word?

No, because he clearly accepts the right-wing argument that poor unemployed people in the hammock of dependency are picking our pockets. That part of the song isn’t genuinely populist; it’s just a GOP talking point from the Reagan years that remains with us today. In the end, the song doesn’t really blame the rich men north of Richmond; it attacks the poor men all over America.

Some song parodies practically write themselves. This is one of them.

BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE

Ah, watch out.

You don’t like what we’re after.

Cool babies.

Things keep getting stranger.

We’re extraordinary guys

Burning down the House.

____________

Hold tight.

You think this party’s over.

Hold tight.

You’re in for nasty weather.

There has got to be a way

Burning down the House.

______________

Here’s your ticket; pack your bags.

RINOs jumping overboard.

Transportation is here.

We’re in charge and we don’t care.

Try to stop us if you dare.

Fightin’ fire with fire.

____________

Ah, all wet.

Hey, you might need a raincoat.

Shakedown.

The nation’s at our mercy.

365 degrees

Burning down the House.

____________

Impeachment days are on their way

And you have not seen nothing yet.

Put the left in its place.

I don’t know what you expect

Staring at your TV set.

Fightin’ fire with fire, ah.

________________

Parody of “Burning Down the House” by Talking Heads.

There is a battle going on among right-wing intellectuals regarding the condition of American workers and the role of the state in improving it. On the one hand, the Reaganite faction argues that workers are doing just fine, thank you, and that state intervention in the economy to help them is dangerous and counterproductive. On the other hand, the national conservatives see a working class that needs lots of government help. Who is right here?

Ross Douthat wants to bridge the gap between the two factions so they can focus their energy on what really matters–banning abortion, driving gay people back into the closet, and encouraging trans people to kill themselves. He uses a graphic prepared by a guy at the AEI to show that things are improving for working people, but aren’t perfect. His conclusion is that there is plenty of room for better policy in the GOP, but workers are better off than they think they are, so they should eschew populist economics and get behind social conservatism.

My reactions to the analysis and the graphic are as follows:

1. There are lots of different ways to measure income. It actually probably makes more sense to measure wealth, given that the wealthy rely more on capital gains than income to better their condition. In any event, the AEI has a distinct ideological bias, so without a lot of information regarding methodology, I’m not inclined to accept the graph as fact.
2. There are two significant items missing from the graph. First, it only shows the conditions of American workers after 1970, which avoids making the contrast between significant income increases prior to that date and the outcome of neoliberal policies. Second, it doesn’t show how American capitalists fared during the timeframe of the graph. Even The Economist concedes that inequality in America rose substantially during the relevant time period.
3. I suspect that the guy who created the graph included the value of health insurance in his income figures. If so, the soaring cost of health care actually represents a benefit to the American worker. Spoiler alert–in the real world, that isn’t true.
4. Changes to the tax code that helped American workers were opposed by the AEI. Relying on them to make a case for avoiding future transfers of wealth is hypocritical and obnoxious.
5. The graph, as you would expect, doesn’t distinguish between workers in growing industries and workers in dying ones. It is the latter that have generated most of the publicity and the interest of reactionary intellectuals. The mainstream right, however, has offered the losers of technological change and globalization nothing but racial and gender resentment and nostalgia for their dearly departed jobs.

In short, if you look at the larger picture, the populist reactionaries have a better case than Douthat allows.

As I’ve noted many times, Republicans want every election to look like 1980. A little over a year ago, that was a plausible outcome, given the Afghan withdrawal, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and high levels of inflation, but not today. Biden refuses to play the Jimmy Carter role, and Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Is there a fairly recent analogy that works better?

Yes–1968, because two of the candidates were the first culture warriors of my lifetime. Richard Nixon focused his campaign on “law and order,” by which he meant putting an end to urban riots, and he attacked counterculture figures with gusto. George Wallace, the Ron DeSantis of his day, went even further; he railed about federal bureaucrats and supported angry white protesters and recalcitrant state and local governments in battles over school integration.

Of course, the analogy isn’t perfect. We aren’t at war–culture wars don’t count. Our cities aren’t burning. Biden, unlike LBJ, is running for re-election. And Trump may share Nixon’s contempt for constitutional norms (and also has the support of Roger Stone), but he lacks Nixon’s intelligence and flair for hypocrisy. All of these differences probably dictate a different result in the election.

As I’ve noted before, the right doesn’t really want a solution to the immigration issue, which divides the base from the PBPs; it just wants to use the issue as a stick against the left, and is having some success with it. What, at least on paper, can be done about the problem?

The two big issues are as follows:

1. Our immigration statutes draw a clear distinction between victims of political persecution, who are entitled to asylum, and economic refugees, who have far fewer rights. The current influx of people from Central America doesn’t fit that mold; the refugees are fleeing violent crime, climate change, and failed states, Should they be given asylum here, or not? One way or another, the law needs to be changed to provide a clear answer to the question.
2. The system needs vastly more resources than it currently has to house, feed, educate, and process the claims of the asylum seekers.

You will note that Biden doesn’t have the constitutional authority to do either of these things on his own. They are the responsibility of Congress, not the executive branch. He just gets the blame for them.

DeSantis is trying desperately to win the religious right away from Trump. On its face, he has a good case; unlike the completely pagan Trump, he is a Christian, and he can claim some real legislative and administrative accomplishments on their behalf. His efforts do not appear to be succeeding, however. Why not?

For several reasons:

1. The genuinely religious portion of the reactionary right is relatively small and diminishing by the day. Just ask Ted Cruz about that.
2. Having been convinced that Trump is the 21st century version of King David during his administration, it is difficult for the Christian right to abandon him.
3. Trump’s never-ending cycle of transgression and whining claims of victimization has resonance in Christian culture.
4. DeSantis has not helped his case by taking equivocal positions on abortion. If he wants the Cruz vote, he needs to support a strict national abortion ban. He signed a six week ban in Florida and then refused to support it as a national standard, which for purely political reasons is the worst of both worlds, because it offends both sides of the debate.

Unions have proven to be a effective mechanism in transferring wealth and power from capitalists to workers, which is why the right despises them so intensely. In spite of that, the left fell out of love with unions in the 1960s and 1970s. Why? For two reasons: first, they tended to be reactionary on culture war issues (remember hard hats beating up Vietnam War protesters?); and second, they tend to emphasize the short-term economic interests of their members over long-term concerns and the interests of the country as a whole.

I can’t speak with any authority on the current status of the reactionary culture warriors issue; I suspect that things have gotten somewhat better, given the changing economy and the differing needs of unions today. The current UAW strike, on the other hand, is clear evidence that the concern about overemphasizing short-term financial interests is still valid. Even leaving aside the obvious public need to limit the impacts of climate change, does the UAW really think it is possible to make America an oasis of fossil fuel vehicles when the rest of the world–particularly China–is building electric cars? Does it make sense for Americans to invest in the economy of the 1950s when everyone else has moved on?

Of course not. One can only hope that Biden can lean on everyone just enough to get a deal that will work for the entire country–not just the workers and the bosses. A lengthy strike will be a big fail for everyone except Trump, who really does believe in reactionary economics. Luddites of the world, unite!

We all know that Hunter Biden is a grifter, probably due to his painful family history. That would put him in the mainstream of GOP celebrities, including, but hardly limited to, Trump.

But that isn’t the most hypocritical aspect of the GOP’s pursuit of the man. That honor resides in the fact that the Republican Party, the great bastion of unrestricted gun ownership and absolute Second Amendment rights, was demanding that he be prosecuted for an offense related to gun ownership. Go figure.

Mike Pence apparently gave a speech about a week ago in which he urged GOP voters to embrace conservatism and reject populism. Populism, in his view, ultimately leads to lawless, irresponsible, unconstitutional government.

Yes, it is true that Trump’s former running mate is a less than ideal spokesman for these views. Yes, you may (and I do) find him pretty nauseating as a human being. Nevertheless, you have to give him credit for his willingness to take on Trump and the base in a clear, forceful way. It won’t get him the nomination, but it will win him some respect from the roughly 60 percent of the GOP that hasn’t completely lost its mind.

In 2020, the GOP’s platform essentially was to provide unconditional support for whatever idea wandered into Trump’s brain. Will the same thing happen in 2024?

Trump likes to keep his options open. In addition, he has every incentive to avoid discussing his positions on such hot button issues as Ukraine, abortion, and entitlement funding. The answer to the question, therefore, is that Trump and the GOP will say as little as possible about their vision in 2024.

Seven years ago, I successfully predicted that Trump would pick Mike Pence as his running mate. I think it is reasonably safe to assume it won’t happen again. Who will get the nod this time?

The average candidate picks someone who can provide a degree of geographical or ideological balance, but Trump doesn’t think that way. His model of politics assumes that it is only the base that matters. On the other hand, he does occasionally show some awareness that he has an issue with female voters. That makes it more likely than not that his choice will be a reactionary woman.

Which woman? It will have to be someone who has never criticized him, and who is on the same ideological wavelength. She will have to meet Trump’s appearance test, which, to be fair, he applies to both men and women. Finally, only someone who lacks a large base of support on her own, but has plenty of ambition, will be willing to abase herself enough to take the job. After all, if you can stand doing nothing but sucking up to Trump for four years, you will probably be the leading candidate for the nomination in 2028.

Who meets these tests? Kristi Noem comes to mind quite readily.

Just a few short months ago, Kevin McCarthy was making a reasonable deal with the Democrats over the objections of the Freedom Caucus to keep us from going over the debt cliff. Somewhat to my surprise, he kept his job. Today, the Freedom Caucus is trying to force him to effectively renege on the deal. Are we headed for another agreement with the moderates? Is this deja vu all over again?

The fact that the stakes are lower this time makes it more likely that the outcome will be different. McCarthy is zigging and zagging in an effort to keep the gavel; his decision to direct an impeachment inquiry that has very little chance of bearing fruit is evidence of his desire to appease the crazoids. I don’t think it will work this time. I think we are headed for a lengthy government shutdown, because the crazoids think it gives them leverage over McCarthy, Biden, the Democrats, and the more reasonable GOP members of the Senate. It doesn’t; it just reminds the public how extreme they really are.

In a recent post, I explained why Trump’s proposal for a ten percent tariff on all imported goods was such a terrible idea, for both economic and geopolitical reasons. But wait! It gets worse!

Per Jonathan Chait, the usual crowd of Trump economic advisers–Moore, Kudlow, et. al.–is planning to use the proceeds of the tariff as an offset for a new corporate tax cut! We’re going to raise prices and taxes on poor and middle-class Americans for the benefit of wealthy shareholders. That’s called doubling down on the dollar store economy.

If you thought Trump would be at all interested in national conservatism, guess again. You shouldn’t be surprised to hear that we’re looking at a second round of faux populism instead.

Trump is showing no interest in debating his GOP competitors. It’s hard to blame him for that; he has nothing to gain and everything to lose, given the size of his lead in the polls, Ramaswamy is acting as his surrogate, and he’s pretty busy dealing with his innumerable legal problems. If I were in his position, I would do the same.

But he is desperate to debate Biden, even though his record in debates is considerably less than stellar. One assumes that he plans to do his dominance thing again to try and prove that he is the only strong leader on the stage. How should Biden respond? Should he agree to debates?

Certainly not until Trump is the nominee, and then only with conditions. Biden should demand two things: first, a statement that the election is not rigged, with a promise to respect the outcome; and second, some sort of plexiglass screen to keep Trump on his side of the stage.

Joe and Dr. Jill are back in the White House discussing the campaign.

JILL: Joe, I’m concerned about the polls. It seems that everyone is down on you, even though the economy is doing pretty well. I’m worried that we might actually lose next year.

JOE: Don’t worry. The campaign hasn’t really started yet. People are still comparing me to the almighty rather than the alternative. If Trump is convicted in any of the ongoing cases, there’s no way swing voters are going to support him. It’s just not going to happen.

JILL: We don’t know that. A lot of things can go wrong.

JOE: What worries you?

JILL: Gas prices, for one. What if they go up dramatically? You don’t have much control over that.

JOE: I’ve made up with the Saudis. They understand that Trump is an unreliable ally. I don’t think we can count on them to keep prices down, but I don’t see them letting prices spike just to put Trump in the White House.

JILL: What if the Russians take Ukraine?

JOE: They don’t have the manpower, tactics, or ammunition to do that. I think Putin is going to lower the cost of the war and hope for a Trump victory. That’s what I’d do in his position.

JILL: What about the border? We’re losing ground even in bright blue areas over the asylum seekers.

JOE: That’s really a problem for Congress, not me. I don’t have some huge slush fund to give to Eric Adams. When people start understanding that, the political problem will go away.

JILL: You know they’re going to go after Kamala Harris and say you’re a doddering figurehead.

JOE: Kamala needs to rise to the occasion and prove that she’s interested in justice, not wokeness. We can help her with that, but in the end, it’s up to her. She has the talent to do it. I’ve seen it on occasion.

JILL: They’ll argue that you’re soft on China, too.

JOE: Yes, but that’s ridiculous. The record will show that Trump was only interested in the trade deficit, and even there, his agreement was a total failure. We’ve made a lot of progress with our policy of flexible containment. The public will understand that when we compare our record to Trump’s.

JILL: So, what’s the plan?

JOE: Mostly, to let Trump destroy himself with moderates every time he opens his mouth. To make the case that we’re bringing good manufacturing jobs back to the areas that were left behind, that unemployment is at record lows, and that inflation has come down dramatically. To hit Trump hard on abortion and climate change. And, of course, to talk about the fact that he is only interested in putting his political opponents in jail–he has no positive vision for anyone in America, even in the red states. He has already said the Constitution should be terminated; how can anyone trust him to keep his oath if he takes office?

JILL: Sounds good to me.