Cromwell

PROPOSITION 2: Racism is an after-the-fact justification for the social, political, and economic dominance of property owners over workers. I refer to this as the “Grand Unified Theory of Sociology;” it tells you that minority identity politics and socialism are ultimately the same cause, a theory espoused by more commentators on the right than the left. It is completely false.

Bouie seems to be extrapolating all of history from his (only partly correct) interpretation of the origins of American slavery. Historical examples disproving his thesis abound, including, but not limited to: Roman slavery was not based on race; various barbarian groups, most notably the Vikings, captured and sold slaves of the same race; no one at the time ever suggested that European lords and peasants during the Middle Ages were of different races; and American and British mill owners in the 18th and 19th centuries made no effort to import workers of different races–they relied on the indigenous white population.

If Bouie were correct, Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic nomination in 2020 by sweeping the black vote. That obviously didn’t happen. Minority identity politics and Marxism are, as I have noted before, different sides of the same coin; they are not the same thing.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Jamelle Bouie is either an outright Marxist or, at a minimum, is heavily influenced by Marxist ideas. That doesn’t make him automatically wrong; most of his work is based on solid research, and contains a minimum of pointless whining. However, it does mean that he can go off on weird tangents based on ideology rather than evidence.

Over the few days, I will be addressing some of his recent comments about slavery, beginning with:

PROPOSITION 1: North American slavery should be viewed primarily as a product of economic conditions, not racism. This is mostly true; the participants in the slave trade (Americans, Europeans, and Africans) did not enslave Africans out of contempt for their physical features and culture and then try to figure out what to do with them. Slavery arose in North America because large-scale agricultural operations in the South required an enormous, cheap, and stable labor force, and because the alternatives didn’t work. Indians couldn’t adapt to plantation life, died from European diseases, and could easily melt into the forest, while Europeans could not be enticed from their farms to do manual labor on plantations without the promise of land and freedom. Better technology was not an option. What else could the plantation owners do?

That said, the belief on the part of the Americans and Europeans that Africans were subhuman probably preceded slavery, and made its justification easier. It did not come after the fact. On that point, I think Bouie is wrong.

Ukraine has to be endlessly frustrating for Biden, because, due mostly to geography, Putin never has to give up the initiative. He can squeeze, relax, or invade any time he likes. We can only react and attempt to deter.

If we had an autocratic political system, things would be different. Biden could send the Sixth Fleet to the shores of Syria and threaten to obliterate Assad and all of the Russians’ investments if anything happens in Ukraine. The pressure could be increased and relaxed in proportion to the events at the Ukrainian border. Putin would no longer be able to dictate the agenda.

This won’t happen, of course, because Biden isn’t a dictator, and Congress and the American people wouldn’t stand for it. In a world completely controlled by realpolitik, however, it would.

The geopolitical message behind the 2008 Olympics was direct and simple: we’re back and taking our rightful place in the world, baby! That’s not unusual; the message was the same at the Olympics in 1936 (Berlin), 1960 (Rome), and 1964 (Tokyo). China has come a long way, for good and for ill, since 2008, so what is the message this time?

As far as I can tell, it is that China is advanced and powerful enough to do anything it desires, including holding skiing events in areas with no snow. There has been no attempt to reproduce the memorable, intimidating scenes of the 2008 Opening Ceremonies, for which we can be grateful. Still, the joint Xi/Putin appearance put a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, particularly with Russian troops poised to invade Ukraine. No one in America, with the exception of the passionate fans of our gold medal winners, is going to remember this event fondly.

While Putin is busy trying to destabilize Ukraine, his people are dying like flies from the virus. This is due to the reluctance of the Russians to get vaccinated. That, in turn, has two causes: the public, for very good reasons, doesn’t trust the government; and Putin isn’t pushing the vaccine very hard.

The latter point is counterintuitive. Why would a state that has nothing but contempt for its citizens have any reluctance to use strongarm tactics on the vaccine? We’re not talking about America and its history of libertarianism, after all.

The answer is that Putin, like Trump, puts himself forward as the personification of toxic masculinity. He can’t strut around in public like the Marlboro Man and then insist that his subjects do something different without looking like a ridiculous hypocrite, so he doesn’t, and they die.

First, there was the pandemic, of course. Then there was the creepy spectacle of the Axis of Autocracy smiling down from the luxury boxes at the Opening Ceremonies. Then we had the Shiffrin implosion and Gu’s attempted footsie with the Chinese. Now we have a classic example of Russian athletic corruption and bullying. Why are these people even permitted to compete, anyway?

It’s not exactly heartwarming stuff. Let’s hope Putin doesn’t follow it up by staging a Massacre on Ice in Ukraine to avenge the Russian loss at Lake Placid in 1980.

On the freestyle skier named Gu.

She’s Chinese; she’s American, too.

Which comes first? I would say

“Don’t just live for today.

The dispute is much larger than you.”

The central tenet of the GOP–the one that holds the CL, PBP, and Reactionary factions together–is the cult of the rugged individual. It offers economic gain in the form of tax cuts and deregulation for the predominantly wealthy CLs and PBPs, and provides a cudgel with which the Reactionaries can beat historically disadvantaged groups. It is an indispensable part of Republican politics.

But, you ask, why do the Reactionaries buy into this? Many of them are downwardly mobile, and rely on government assistance for their survival. Why don’t they own up to it, and acknowledge that big government is sometimes a good thing, instead of opposing a larger welfare state and denying that modern problems like climate change and the pandemic only have collective solutions?

Because they are constantly told by the CLs and the PBPs for opportunistic reasons that they truly are rugged individuals who have been screwed out of their rights by a government which prefers the claims of women, minorities, and a self-interested intellectual elite to those of hard-working white Christian men. If you can just obliterate the establishment, all those high-paying coal and steel jobs will come back, and life will return to normal.

It’s a lie, of course. But it works.

Three observations are pertinent here. First, boycotts and demonstrations have historically been a major part of American political life; they were used by the colonists against the British prior to the Revolution and by civil rights activists from the sixties to the present day. Second, they are primarily associated with the left. Third, the reason they are associated with the left is that the left had no insider political power with which to accomplish its goals. Boycotts and demonstrations are consequently the peaceful equivalent of guerrilla warfare–the weapons of the side fighting uphill in an apparently unequal battle.

The current problem is with the cause, not the tactics. The white Christian right, which is nothing if not derivative, uses these tactics in a twisted homage to the Civil Rights Movement because it incorrectly views itself as an oppressed minority. In reality, it has a monopoly on every kind of power you might care to name in about half of the country. It considers itself oppressed because it has been denied, through politics, the law, and demography, its favorite “freedoms:” the “freedom” not to be offended by different viewpoints; and the “freedom” to dominate seculars, women, and minorities.

The bottom line is that we have two groups in this country who feel oppressed. The left has something of a case; the right has none. I don’t see any peaceful way forward until at least one of these groups is satisfied that its rights and views are being respected and no longer feels compelled to cancel the other.

With the Super Bowl coming up, let’s review where the factions stand on legalized gambling:

1. CLs: Why not? It’s purely a matter of personal responsibility. People should be free to gamble if they want. Keep the state out of it!
2. PBPs: There’s money to be made here. Count us in.
3. CDs: Excessive gambling hurts families and society as a whole. It needs to be strictly controlled.
4. Reactionaries: Same as CDs. We support efforts to maintain traditional morality.

As you can see, there is no consensus position here. Fortunately for the GOP, gambling isn’t nearly as important to the flock as, say, abortion.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that Putin has decided the benefits of taking Ukraine exceed the costs. Given that the number of troops massed on the borders far exceeds what he needs for a minor campaign, and that taking another small slice of Ukraine doesn’t really change his position much, I have to believe that his objective would be to control the entire country. What would the invasion look like?

As with the American invasion of Iraq, it will start with a shock-and-awe demonstration designed to crush the will of the Ukrainians to resist, as well as to impress the rest of the world (and his domestic audience) with his virility. It will probably work. The problem, however, is that the Iraq analogy extends to the period after the “victory;” the ensuing occupation will require a huge number of Russian troops, and a large element of the Ukrainian population will fight back. There will also be numerous terrorist attacks on Russian soil, and plenty of Russian civilians will be killed. Support for the war, always questionable, will plunge, as both sides descend into barbarism, and Ukraine becomes a much larger version of Chechnya.

Iraq was a ghastly mistake, as I predicted from the beginning. Ukraine would be, too.

Strictly speaking, of course, there will be no pro-Trump coup in 2024, because the armed forces answer to Biden. That was discussed as a potential problem in 2020, but it won’t be next time.

But what about the militias? What about red state governors and the National Guard? Could we see some sort of armed uprising on the streets of red and purple states?

Right now, it seems unlikely. The militias are too small and disorganized, and they do not yet have the linkage with mainstream GOP politicians that they need to be a major force in this country. That could change, however. The election is three years away.

There is no chance of a repeat of the January 6 riot; the government will be prepared for that. There is also no chance that Harris will do what Pence correctly refused to do and overturn the election by herself. Is there nonetheless some danger that Congress could go rogue and declare Trump elected over the will of the voters?

Yes, if given the opportunity. Congress would be a critical part of a plot involving the creation of sets of alternate electors at the state level. If the GOP controls both houses in January 2025, the threat of an overturned election is very real.

The remaining PBPs in Congress would do their best to protect the integrity of the system. Would there be enough of them left to prevail? At this point–after “legitimate political discourse”–who knows?

The Chinese-American Chen

Just kept winning again and again.

Last night he won gold.

Does the winning get old?

I just hope it continues, my friends!

Ross Douthat sees a conflict within the GOP between a sniffy, Tory anti-democratic elite and a populist base. On the other hand, he thinks the Democratic Party is dominated by an elitist establishment which kowtows to experts and is also opposed to democracy. Is he right?

Only in part. His characterization of the Buckley/Will Tory element of the GOP is accurate, but that element doesn’t matter much in electoral terms. His description of the reactionary populist cohort of the party, on the other hand, is completely inaccurate; what makes that cohort dangerous to liberal democracy is its knowledge that it does not, in fact, represent a majority of the American people–only a majority of what they consider to be real Americans. Their real objective is to disenfranchise as much of the rest of America as possible, but they lack the will and the imagination to admit it; instead, they rely on “fraud” to make the case against democracy.

The difference between the two elements described by Douthat is, therefore, one of degree. The Tories think that the government should be run by wealthy businessmen and right-wing intellectuals; the reactionaries would expand that group to all white Christians, but would exclude anyone who isn’t a “real American.”

As to the Democrats, if the progressive expert-lovers ran the party, Elizabeth Warren would be president today. Only a portion of the party–and not the largest part–could reasonably be described as “elitist.”