Cromwell

Guanxi–the creation and use of networks for economic gain–is a feature of all societies, not just China’s. The Chinese, however, take it to a completely different level; it is an important part of the culture. You could reasonably say it is part of Chinese exceptionalism.

When you combine guanxi with a one-party system which lacks an independent press and judicial system, you have a blueprint for corruption. What does that mean for the periodic campaigns against corruption that are part of life in the PRC?

It means that “corruption” is synonymous with actual or potential disloyalty, or simple mistakes in playing the patronage game. Xi is more interested in rooting out opposition to his rule than in eliminating the unwarranted privileges of his friends. Corruption in the liberal democratic sense of the word is an inherent part of the Chinese system, and will never be eradicated as long as the CCP retains a monopoly on power.

Putin is apparently lobbying hard for Belarus to enter the war on his side. It would be a form of escalation–the creation of a second front, presumably–without running the risk of a NATO attack on Russian forces. Why not try it?

Because Lukashenko may be a tyrant, but he’s not a complete fool. He doesn’t have anything like the control over his country that Putin has over Russia. Entering the war, with no obvious gains for Belarus, would undoubtedly rouse an already unhappy populace and endanger his hold on power. Worse, NATO might feel free to attack his military and even his cities, given that he doesn’t have nuclear weapons. The potential for disaster is obvious; the second front might be in Belarus itself, not Ukraine.

To Xi, and the rest of the leadership of the CCP, Gorbachev is a cautionary tale and an object of contempt. As they see it, Gorbachev simply didn’t have the brains or the balls to keep the lid on; he wanted change, and got a revolution instead. That will never happen in China.

The irony here is that Xi and Gorbachev had the same vision for their supposedly socialist societies–just enough capitalism to permit the country to compete internationally, but no more. The difference is they started from different places. Gorbachev tried to reform a stagnant system, and the results speak for themselves; Xi wants to suck the dynamism out of an economy that was working perfectly well in order to maintain stability, his overriding goal.

The two phrases I associate most with Margaret Thatcher are “The lady’s not for turning” and “There is no alternative”(often expressed as an acronym–TINA). Liz Truss may dress like Thatcher, but she acts more like a Tin Lady. Her U-turn came in less than a month.

Maybe Marx was wrong–history repeats itself as farce the first time.

Truss had better hope for a 2020s version of the Falklands War, or an existential battle with the unions, because otherwise, all she has to run on is her hatred of wokeness. That doesn’t exactly resonate under the present circumstances.

T.S. Eliot said April was the cruelest month, but in the North Carolina mountains, it’s October. As I’m writing this, the sky is technicolor blue, and the trees are eye-popping shades of red, orange, and yellow. It’s magnificent, but it will only last a week. Then, the leaves will fall, the birds will flee, and we will be facing the cold reality of winter.

Normally, we would be preparing to return to Florida around now, but Ian made that impossible. I haven’t really experienced a full blast of winter in about 45 years, and I’m dreading it. In a larger sense, however, we’re lucky. Our Florida house may look like a dump site, but at least it’s still there. I know people who stayed for Ian and watched structures, boats, and bodies float by. Some poor folks are living in tents on their lots. It’s an appalling sight.

I guess October is the cruelest month in Lee County, too.

Barring some sort of miraculous blue wave, the creative part of Biden’s presidency is over. The GOP will be on the offensive–in more ways than one, of course.

To weather the unrelenting attacks, we will need a president who is known to be reasonable and moderate, but who can say no when the situation calls for it. A president who has experience doing the rope-a-dope, and who knows how to let the GOP extremists make themselves the issue for the American public.

In short, you may think that Biden didn’t have the intellectual firepower to move an ambitious agenda through the system during his first two years in office, but he is the perfect choice to deal with the GOP during the rest of his presidency.

On the one hand, Biden needs to provide enough aid to Ukraine to, at a minimum, throw the Russians back to where they started, because if he doesn’t, Putin will just be motivated to try again in a year or two. On the other hand, if the Ukrainians are too successful, Putin may escalate to the point that a nuclear war is all too thinkable.

It’s a tightrope act. In the real world, which is messier than any theoretical version, it is unlikely we will be totally successful. That’s just the way it is.

Just be grateful Biden is president right now. Can you imagine what would be happening if Trump were in office today?

During the pandemic, some states thought it was necessary to loosen the usual voting rules in order to maximize participation in the process. Republicans, by and large, thought this was an outrage, because it would lead to fraud. They never found any, but they screamed about it all the same. They still do.

Today, Ian has created similar problems for voting in Southwest Florida. The difference, of course, is that Southwest Florida is a Republican stronghold. Do you think DeSantis and the GOP will insist on the same strict adherence to state voting rules that they thought was essential in 2020? Do you believe that tens of thousands of Republicans will consequently be denied the right to vote for DeSantis and Rubio in November?

Yeah, right. Fraud is a concept that only applies in large urban areas with predominantly minority populations, if you support the GOP.

A note to my readers: I will be returning to the Sunshine State to deal with the damage to my house starting tomorrow. Regular posts will resume when I return.

Yes, the Supreme Court has clearly become a tool of the right. It cherry-picks history for ideological reasons, disregards precedent, and turns GOP talking points into constitutional law. That record alone, however, is not the reason the public is starting to doubt the Court’s legitimacy. The more compelling reason is the absence of one or more swing justices.

As I noted in a previous post, the Court had a swing justice throughout my entire adult life until Kennedy retired. The presence of a persuadable justice gives hope to both sides and thus provides a source of public support for the Court. That no longer exists. Everyone knows where each of the justices stands on the major political and culture war issues; the outcome of any given case will be dictated by the identity of the parties. The only question now is how far and how fast the Court will feel comfortable in pursuing the reactionary agenda. So far, the answer has been quite far and fast, indeed.

On the one hand, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that social media are more akin to common carriers than traditional media companies, and that using editorial discretion is “censorship,” which has no protection in Section 230 or the First Amendment. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case in which the plaintiffs argue that the use of algorithms is not protected by Section 230, so the social media companies can be held liable for some third-party postings. In a very narrow sense, given the emphasis on algorithms in the second case, the two arguments are not mutually exclusive, but in a broader sense, they clearly are. Both threaten the current business models of the social media companies: the first is consistent with arguments about censorship typically made by the right; and the second with the position of the left, which worries about the dissemination of extreme right-wing lies.

The partisan divide in Congress as to what exactly is the problem presented by social media makes legislation unlikely. The judiciary, however, may do the job instead. These cases bear close watching.

Assume that the Ukrainian army has broken through. The Russians are on the run. Lacking other good options, Putin uses tactical nukes to halt the advance and bring the situation back under control. It’s his trump card, no?

The problem is that he would be using nuclear weapons to irradiate areas that he now says are legally part of Russia. In other words, the gambit only works if you assume that the annexation is bogus, and that Putin is a liar.

Which he is, of course. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of Russian men fleeing his draft.

During the height of the pandemic, Ron DeSantis gambled and won. Facing what looked like a substantial revenue shortfall, he continued to spend as if nothing had happened in the hope that the federal government would bail him out. It did. The pandemic relief bill, and the recovery that followed it, left Florida awash in cash. DeSantis was consequently in a position to cut taxes, give state employees a raise, and complain about Biden’s inflation at the same time.

Today, the only hope for the survival of the Florida Freedom Project is an absolutely massive infusion of federal aid; otherwise, DeSantis and the Republicans in the Florida Legislature will have to raise taxes, add an assessment to state hurricane insurance policies, and impose lots of new building regulations to address the impacts of Ian. Will the federal government come to the rescue again? Yes, but probably not to the extent that DeSantis would wish.

Of course, that will mean that he can take the cash with one hand and lob grenades of ingratitude back at Washington with the other, which would suit him and the base just fine.

Superstorm Donald hit New York and New Jersey yesterday, causing countless deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage. The desperate citizens of the two states cried out for relief from FEMA. President DeSantis, however, stated firmly that no relief would be forthcoming unless the two blue states agreed to eliminate all manifestations of wokeness within their boundaries.

When questioned about the apparent inconsistency between his position on hurricane relief for red and blue states, DeSantis denied that any inconsistency existed. He indicated that the purpose of government was to provide assistance to real Americans, not to rootless, secular cosmopolitans who hate America and demean and exploit struggling workers in red states. It was consequently totally appropriate to provide storm aid for red states, but to demand reform in exchange for aid to states dominated by blue people.

In the end, it would be for their own good, said DeSantis. Sometimes, you just have to use tough love to get people back to God and traditional values.

Timing is everything in politics. If Reagan and Thatcher had faced the voters in the early part of 1982, they would have been crushed. But they didn’t. Thatcher won the Falklands War, Reagan benefited from drastic interest rate cuts and a surging economy, and the rest is history.

I have to assume that Truss is hoping for the same sequence of events: collapse, followed by a recovery fueled by lower interest rates and her tax cuts right around the time of the next election. Will it work? It’s not impossible, but it’s not likely, either.

Once upon a time, it was a big tent, tactically flexible party that believed in limited government, balanced budgets, and traditional values. Today, it is a party of radicals dedicated to two things: victory in a culture war against half of the nation’s citizens; and tax cuts for the wealthy under all circumstances, even if they will lead to higher interest rates and inflation.

Is it the Conservative Party or the GOP? The Truss government is proof that the two are converging, which is bad news for the UK.