Cromwell

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown Covid-19 blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

The right’s so irresponsible; for that, there’s no excuse.

We can go forward or back; the nation has to choose.

——

We just did what we were told; we took one for the team.

We drove over a hundred miles to get the damn vaccine.

For people to do otherwise, I think is just obscene.

It’s ok if they lose their jobs; you know just what I mean.

——

I’ve got the blues.

The pandemic blues.

Mandates are required here;

There’s no right to refuse.

They claim it’s about freedom

But they ignore the costs.

Their freedom’s just another word

For thousands of lives lost.

If Biden is looking for a good way to improve his economic record and lower the inflation rate, here’s an idea: get rid of the counterproductive tariffs, including the ones imposed on China. Yes, the GOP will howl that he is going soft on the Chinese, but the tariffs are a tax on Americans, not China, and do not provide us with any meaningful leverage. They serve no purpose other than to play to the right-wing peanut gallery. That wasn’t deemed to be a good enough reason to stay in Afghanistan; why should this be any different, particularly after showing toughness by making the submarine deal?

The combination of pandemic-driven wage pressures, supply chain issues, and occasional local government disapprovals has made life more difficult for dollar store owners. Should we celebrate?

Not really; dollar stores are a symptom, not the cause, of what I call the dollar store economy. The cause is the hollowing out of the middle class as the result of globalization, technological change, and tax and regulatory policies favoring capital over labor. If we succeed in rebuilding a prosperous middle class through the expansion of the welfare state, there will no longer be as much demand for dollar stores, and they will expire from natural causes. Until then, dollar stores thrive because they meet the needs of struggling American workers. They are, unfortunately, an essential safety valve in today’s economy.

Ross Douthat notes that the typically libertarian left supports vaccine and mask mandates, while the normally authoritarian right opposes them. He thinks this role reversal is deeply weird. Can it be explained?

Yes. The left supports mandates only because every less restrictive alternative has been tried, and has failed. Mandates are the only plausible remedy at this time, and they are working, as I had predicted. The right opposes mandates because they are, as I have noted many times, faux libertarians. They object to restraints imposed on them by what they perceive is a liberal establishment; abortion regulations, of course, are a different story. Freedom for me, but not for thee.

A quick glance at a map tells the story; if China gains control of Taiwan, it will have a foot on the throat of the Japanese. The Japanese presumably prefer not to become a Chinese vassal state, but any efforts to beef up their defensive capabilities will run afoul of both public opinion and their constitution. What, then can the Japanese government do?

Provide America with enhanced intelligence and cyberwarfare assets. They are relatively cheap, consistent with traditional Japanese areas of expertise, and easy to conceal from both the Chinese and the voting public. They would also be very helpful in the event of an attack on Taiwan.

The Chinese view the Australian submarine deal as proof that America’s strategic objective in Asia is containment. In a way, they are right. But what, exactly, does that mean?

America is not threatened by the expansion of the Chinese economy, or by the increasing wealth of the Chinese people. After all, we encouraged it, and benefit from it in a myriad of ways. What we object to is China’s attempts to impose its will on other countries, either through its economic clout or the growing power of its military. This would be an issue even if China were impeccably democratic; the creeping authoritarianism of its regime, and the fear it justifiably inspires, only makes things worse.

And so, we are bound to have a complex relationship with the Chinese. We will work with them whenever we can, but we will protect ourselves and our friends from their bullying when we must. That inevitably includes beefing up our military capabilities in Southeast Asia and the surrounding seas.

The left, which is always in favor of increased federal spending, presumably wants the bipartisan infrastructure bill to pass. They want the human capital bill to pass even more, however, so they are holding the infrastructure bill hostage. It is a very Trumpian tactic.

The threat to torpedo the infrastructure bill is simply not credible, unless you assume that the real objective of the left is to discredit the Democratic Party, prove that it is unfit for office, and put Trump and McConnell back in charge of the country. Furthermore, voting no will only cause the moderates to dig in even further on the human capital bill. A no vote is actually the opposite of the use of leverage.

If I’m Pelosi, I would bring the infrastructure bill to a vote ASAP and see just how suicidal the left really is. My guess is that they will cave after the time for loud posturing expires.

If you go to the Chinese Communist Party Museum in Shanghai, your first question should be, “Where’s the Communism?” You would expect to see plenty of exhibits describing the evils of a decadent, feudal society in late Qing China; instead, you see a parade of material attacking the predations of imperialist European powers. The greatness of the CCP, it is clear, is viewed as the restoration of China’s place in the world, not the creation of a state run by and for the proletariat.

Chinese nationalism historically has revolved around a complacent and self-satisfied belief in the superiority of Chinese culture, not militarism. However justified that was in the past, it is hard to make a case for it in today’s world. With the CCP constantly beating the nationalist drum, is the stage consequently being set for a military confrontation from which the Chinese government cannot afford to back down without jeopardizing its legitimacy in the eyes of the public? We had better hope not.

Given India’s complicated history, its liberal democracy was bound to be messy—chaotic, even. Nevertheless, it was robust, and Indians are justly proud of it. Unfortunately, that is changing for the worse under Modi. India is evolving into something more like a gigantic version of Israel, with Muslims playing the role of the Palestinians.

The contrast between India and China on human rights issues is not, therefore, as clear cut as we would like. Does that mean we should keep illiberal India at arm’s length? Not at all! India’s shortcomings are not as baked into the system as China’s, and in any event, India does not present the danger to its neighbors that China does. Given the changing balance of power in East Asia, we can no longer afford to be too fussy about our allies.

Will the nation default on its debt?

The solution’s not visible yet.

How does it end?

Will either side bend?

It’s as stupid as crises can get.

The Chinese government is in the process of perfecting the surveillance state. The combination of cameras and AI looks like something out of “1984.” Does it mean China is becoming a totalitarian state?

Not exactly. In a genuinely totalitarian state, there is no sphere for private behavior; everything, be it art or science or entertainment, must actively advance the interests of the state or be crushed. If you’re not completely and wholeheartedly committed to the state, you are an enemy.

The Chinese state is not like that. It does not tolerate opposition, but it leaves lots of space for activity that is politically neutral. This is particularly true in the economic sphere.

In short, a totalitarian state demands the engagement of its citizens. The CCP is exactly the opposite. It wants the Chinese people to get on with their lives and be productive without asking too many questions. The surveillance state is designed to punish deviance, not to generate support.

Young Americans, it seems, don’t want to work with their hands. Millions of people remain unemployed, while job openings have reached record levels. While some of this is attributable to low wages and fear of the virus, some of the jobs, such as those in construction, are going begging even though they pay pretty well. Everyone wants to be an influencer, but few are chosen. Barring a sea change in attitudes, how are we to deal with problem?

In the short run, the only answer is more immigrants. There is plenty of supply and demand; all we have to do is make them match.

It was 2030. The great power was grappling with the problems of climate change and increasing inequality by expanding the powers of the central government. It was taking more control over the internet, as well. The surveillance state was becoming more of a reality every day. Defense spending was rising, too, as a confrontation over Taiwan loomed. The rest of the world looked on with increasing concern.

Is it China or America? You decide. In spite of their very different cultures and political systems, the countries have more in common than you probably think.

And . . . I’m back.

The first German election—the public, transparent one—is in the books. The second one—the one that really matters—is about to begin. How that one will turn out, no one knows, including me.

The one conclusion we can safely draw at this point is that either the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats will be in opposition. That’s a good thing. Grand coalitions, except in times of national emergencies, are unhealthy, because they drive opposition to the extremes, and weaken centrist parties in the long run. Germany will be better off if the electorate has a clear choice between the center-right and the center-left. That has been missing for most of the past decade.

And the three men I admire most

The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost

They caught the last train for the coast

The day the music died.

—Don MacLean, “American Pie”

I call the area of the North Carolina mountains in which I live “Boomerville” because the only radio station plays nothing but hits from the 70s and 80s. “American Pie” is one of the songs in heavy rotation.

When you think about it, “American Pie” was an incredibly unlikely hit, for two reasons. First, of course, was its extreme length and complexity. Second, the lyrics are a complete rejection of the culture that most Boomers hold dear. The song tells us that the country started to go to hell in a handbasket towards the end of the Fifties. It is a message that only Trump voters should want to hear.

The irony is that the song itself borrows heavily from Dylan—one of its targets— and would be unimaginable without him.

So why do Boomers love the song? Do they have a lingering suspicion they drove the country in the wrong direction? Do they ignore its context and generalize the feeling of nostalgia and loss? Or are they just stupid? And what in the world would a millennial make of it today?

You decide.

A note to my readers: I will be on vacation for the next week. I will be back with my semi-annual series on China on the 28th.