Cromwell

Dreher wants you to know that his real hero, Viktor Orban, is nothing like Putin. Is he right?

Let’s look at the record. Orban maintains a stranglehold on power in Hungary by: ferociously gerrymandering legislative districts; buying or otherwise controlling the news media; using law enforcement and the judiciary against his opponents; doling out goodies from the EU to his supporters; and posing as the defender of traditional Christian values against LGBTQ people, secular humanists, Jews, and Muslim immigrants. Is this ringing any bells?

Admittedly, Orban hasn’t poisoned his most conspicuous opponents, shut down the internet, or invaded any of his neighbors yet. That’s because Hungary is a small, poor country which needs EU money and lacks a strong military. Whether it is due in any way to a lack of inclination is unknowable under the circumstances.

Our old friend Rod Dreher is shocked, shocked that Vladimir Putin is encouraging his Syrian allies to fight for him in Ukraine. To Dreher, this means that Putin is only posing cynically as the defender of Christian values against the barbarians of the left. Otherwise, how could he bring in dirty Muslims to fight the pious Orthodox Christians of Ukraine? He must only be interested in power, and empire!

Well, of course he bloody is! Dreher is the kind of guy who will buy anything you put in front of him as long as you wrap it up in a package of traditional Christian values. Anyone with any brains at all would have seen that Putin is about power, and nothing else.

People typically watch “Dateline” because it portrays a predictable and just universe in which evildoers get their just desserts in the end. Occasionally, that doesn’t happen; the story ends inconclusively, and the viewers feel cheated.

In a similar vein, I suspect most Americans anticipate Putin’s Ukraine adventure will end with an appropriate punishment for the criminal. Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely; the Russian military may not be covering itself in glory, but it has won Ukrainian territory and still enjoys advantages in men and weapons. If the result is a compromise, what happens next? Biden gets the blame, of course.

If he is wise, he will be preparing the American public for some sort of a deal. I don’t see any evidence of that to date.

Putin launched an unprovoked, imperialist war against an adjoining country he believes has no right to exist. When the US responded by arming Ukraine, what did he say? That he, and Russia, were being “cancelled” by America, of course!

It sounds ludicrous–deranged, even–but it has a clear purpose. He has chosen to identify himself completely with the extreme right in America in the hopes that it has enough political power to stop Biden from intervening in the war. It is cynical, not crazy.

Most of the members of the “New Right” deny being useful idiots, but what more evidence do you need?

And so Putin invaded Ukraine.

I don’t really see what he’s gained.

His campaign’s a dud.

He’s stuck in the mud

And the Russians are feeling the pain.

Donald Trump pulled his endorsement of Mo Brooks in the Alabama primary yesterday. His real reason for doing so, of course, was that Brooks was polling poorly, and thus making him look bad. His stated reason, however, was that Brooks had turned “woke” by refusing to argue that Trump could be reinstated as president prior to 2024.

If that’s what being “woke” means now, count me in.

In the midst of all of our cheerleading for Ukraine, Ross Douthat says we should leave plenty of room for dissent. Is he right?

Absolutely! There is always room for splashes of cold realism when public enthusiasm runs ahead of good sense, as long as the arguments are made in good faith. If you’re a “New Right” admirer of Putin who believes that the war is a contest between a properly masculine leader and the woke, feminized West, however, you’re not making the realism argument in good faith, and we have no reason to listen to you.

Fortunately, Douthat is not in that category, but some of his friends are. Here’s looking at you, Mr. Ahmari.

Ideally, of course, the Ukrainians would throw the Russians completely out of the country with NATO’s weapons, but no active assistance on the ground or in the air. It is highly unlikely, lacking NATO’s offensive capabilities, that they can do so. With that in mind, what should NATO be looking to accomplish here?

Two things: to minimize the loss of Ukrainian sovereignty in the event of a deal; and to degrade the Russian military to the point that it won’t try it again. Realistically, we can’t do anything more than that.

It isn’t a clash of civilizations between the swaggering, manly Orthodox Christian Russians and the secular, feminized West. There are no significant cultural differences between Russians and Ukrainians (after all, that was part of Putin’s rationale for the war), and the nearest NATO country, Poland, is as militant about LGBTQ issues as Russia.

It also isn’t a war between liberal democracy and autocracy, although that argument is closer to the mark than the clash of civilizations model. Ukraine has historically been dominated by oligarchs, and is hardly a perfect example of liberal democracy. Putin probably worries that the existence of personal freedoms and free elections in a neighboring state creates a bad example for his people, but it is unlikely that the Ukrainian system represents any sort of existential threat to his kleptocracy.

No, this is an imperialist war to recreate the Russian Empire over the objections of Russia’s neighbors and in violation of modern international norms. That is plenty of reason to oppose it.

The MLBPA came into the last round of negotiations determined to improve the lot of average veteran players. Did it succeed?

No, because the new agreement did practically nothing to discourage cyclical tanking. The only new measure that will have any impact at all is the lottery for draft picks. That is a good idea that should have been implemented years ago, but it won’t do much to discourage tanking, simply because the MLB draft is far less important to the teams than the NFL or NBA drafts. There is absolutely no certainty that the first pick in the MLB draft will ever make it to the major leagues, much less turn a franchise around.

The fact of the matter is that the players made their own bed by insisting on the capitalist model over the corporate socialist model. In other words, they made a conscious decision to emphasize the earning power of stars over drones. Unless and until the drones take over the MLBPA and demand a complete change in direction, the elite players will continue to get monstrously large paychecks (just as elite entertainers do in other fields), while the rank and file will struggle to get by.

Given that China under Xi is moving towards arbitrary one-man rule, and that Putin’s Russia is rapidly extinguishing free expression and political rights, it is fair to say that the political systems of the two countries, never far apart, are converging. And yet, the two nations are very different. China is vibrant and growing; Russia is stagnant, morose, and suspicious. How do we account for the discrepancy?

It is mostly due to history and culture. The Chinese people view their country as the center of the universe. The Chinese state has been on top for most of its existence. The country is clearly on an upswing. Why wouldn’t the Chinese people be energetic and optimistic, regardless of the travails of their recent past and any issues with their present government?

Russian history, on the other hand, is basically a string of disasters. Life is either bad or worse, depending on the size and competence of the state. Russians don’t believe things will ever get better, because they never have. And so, they don’t.

Both the NFL and the NBA have tanking issues; just ask fans of the Dolphins, Browns, and Sixers. This is due primarily to competitive reasons, however–not financial ones. Franchises that tank do so in the hope of trading extremely poor performance in the short run for success in the future.

Due to the adoption of the capitalist model, MLB is in a different position. The franchises break down into three groups:

1. A small number of very large market teams with extremely lucrative local TV contracts never tank–the enormous fan base would never tolerate it. That doesn’t necessarily mean these teams will always be good; bad management can get in the way, as Mets fans will be happy to tell you. They are never deliberately bad, however.
2. At the other extreme, you have the “Moneyball” teams: Tampa Bay and Oakland. These franchises never increase payroll substantially, due to their financial limitations; they try to beat you with innovation. They’re pretty good at it, too.
3. The teams in the middle engage in “cyclical tanking.” At one end of the cycle, when the team becomes expensive, but has no reasonable chance of winning the World Series, ownership sells off the underperforming veteran players, drastically lowers payroll, and plays younger, less expensive players, in the hope that they will improve to the point where it makes sense to invest in a few outstanding free agents. Payroll then increases as the team improves until it is no longer competitive at the highest level, at which point the cycle begins again.

The trend in MLB is for even large market teams which used to be in the first group, such as the Red Sox and the Cubs, to engage in cyclical tanking. Fortunately for fans and the owners, enough teams are on the upswing of the cycle at any given time to prevent the large market teams from winning the World Series every year. The cycles are different for each franchise; some manage to prolong the upswing section by developing good young talent and making shrewd trades in the sell-off phase (Cleveland), while others are poorly managed, never produce good homegrown talent, and are always rebuilding (Baltimore, Pittsburgh). Nevertheless, cyclical tanking means that there will always be several teams that are absolutely terrible, and have no realistic chance of making it to the postseason.

“Cyclical tanking” is a disaster for mediocre veteran players. The median salary in MLB has fallen over the last few years even as compensation for elite performers has soared. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that it was the players, not the owners, who insisted on the capitalist model. They have done this to themselves.

How did the latest labor agreement address the cyclical tanking issue, and help the middle class? I will discuss that in my last post on the subject.

Of the three major American professional sports leagues, the one that comes the closest to pure corporate socialism is the NFL, primarily due to the fact that the teams only play once a week. The largest source of revenue is the league’s TV contracts, the proceeds of which are shared equally. There is a fairly hard salary cap. The worst teams are treated preferentially in the draft, with no lottery. As a result, there are incentives to tank, but they are based more on the desire to win big later than on financial concerns.

The NBA is in the middle. There are more games, so local TV contracts are an important source of revenue. There is a salary cap, and a draft, but the draft is subject to a lottery to create disincentives for tanking.

MLB comes closest to the capitalist model. Local TV contracts and gate receipts are much more important sources of revenue than the national TV contract. There is no salary cap–just a tax over a threshold that is set relatively high–and no floor. International signings historically have not been subject to a draft. It is a model that naturally favors large market teams (which inevitably have the highest revenues) and a handful of the best players, whose salaries have skyrocketed, over the middle class.

It is the players, not the owners, who insisted on the capitalist model for MLB. Viewed from a broad perspective, it looks a lot like the world economy after globalization–huge profits for the most talented and fortunate, but struggles for average workers. How is it working out in practice, and are the players satisfied? I will answer those questions in the last two posts of this series.

I’m not going to watch. Why? Because I know the GOP senators are going to advance their narrative that the Democratic Party is soft on crime by distorting her record. It’s a completely cynical ploy, and it won’t stop her from being confirmed, but it may work with the American public.

For those of you who think the Democrats have done the same thing, I would simply say this: they didn’t solicit the Kavanaugh accuser, and had a legitimate concern about his moral fitness for the office, while their questions for Barrett were based on an accurate description of her opinions. That isn’t the same thing.

Part of me wants her to respond to questions about being soft on criminals by saying she believes in due process for everyone–even people who stormed the Capitol and tried to overthrow the government. I know she can’t do that, but I would love to see the expression on Josh Hawley’s face if she did.

The parameters of a potential deal over Ukraine are obvious; as with the Israeli/Palestinian situation, the issue is one of will, not imagination. The deal points would be as follows:

1. Ukraine acknowledges Russia’s full sovereignty over Crimea;
2. Russia acknowledges Ukraine’s full sovereignty over the bogus breakaway republics;
3. Ukraine agrees never to join NATO, but makes no commitment regarding the EU;
4. All of the signatories guarantee Ukrainian independence;
5. Russia withdraws completely from Ukraine; and
6. All sanctions against Russia are lifted after the withdrawal can be verified.

This is not a victory for anyone, but it would permit Putin to save some face with the Russian public. Will he take the deal? At this point, who knows?