Cromwell

Dripping with humanity, and speaking softly and plainly, Biden made the case for his massive spending programs tonight. Unlike his two immediate predecessors, he neither soared nor savaged. He framed the overriding issue as winning the future against autocrats by building a more modern economy based on the interests of the poor and the middle class, not the wealthy and large corporations. It was an extremely effective speech.

If you’re a Republican, how do you respond to the spending programs? Do you say that there is no problem, for example, with the cost of child care, when the public knows perfectly well that there is? Do you say that the private sector can provide this service at a price everyone can afford, when it is clear that it doesn’t? Do you say we don’t have the money to pay for it, when the program comes with a popular funding source? Or do you just lie about what’s in the program, call it socialism, and go back to talking about meat quotas and the Harris book?

We already know the answer to that one.

The rabid right has had quite a week. First, we had the story, breathlessly quoted on Fox News and by various reactionary luminaries, that Biden had a plan to limit our meat intake. Second, the NY Post apparently directed a reporter to write a bogus story to the effect that the government was handing out copies of the Kamala Harris book at the border. Once again, the right-wing outrage machine went into overdrive. The problem, of course, is that both stories were demonstrably false.

That doesn’t appear to present a moral issue for the Murdochs, who clearly want to be taken seriously, but not literally. For them, the narrative is set; it is just a question of supplying the supporting facts, as with Hearst and the Spanish-American War. Whether those “facts” are literally true is not particularly relevant; the only thing that really matters is the narrative. Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative is by definition either false or meaningless.

When Trump lied, as he did over 20,000 times while in office, at least everyone knew his history and reacted accordingly. For other GOP politicians and media outlets to lend their better reputations to lies is a different matter altogether. One can only hope that the Murdochs can, at some point, be persuaded that it is ultimately in their best interests to maintain some reasonable degree of journalistic ethics and objectivity. Right now, I don’t see it.

Back in the heyday of IS, I predicted the group would burn itself out fairly quickly as long as the forces of order reacted with intelligence and restraint. This was based on previous terrorist flurries at the beginning of the twentieth century and during the 1970s. I was right. Islamic terrorism hasn’t been completely extinguished, but it is no longer the overriding concern that it was five years ago.

So why don’t I have the same level of confidence regarding right-wing extremism? For the following reasons:

1. They have far more public support;
2. They have infiltrated law enforcement and the military;
3. They are armed; and, above all
4. They are convinced the left is on a path of sending them to concentration camps. The Islamic groups thought they had already seen the worst of times, but the right-wing extremists think, not only do they have a divine right to rule, they are fighting for their own physical and cultural survival. If you genuinely believe that, you are capable of almost anything.

Bret Stephens predicts that the left will ultimately divide over the demands of its woke faction. Is he correct?

As long as the Orban Option is looming as a real possibility, no. The liberals and the identity determinist left are united on opposing right-wing identity illiberalism. Wokeism is by far the lesser of the two evils; it doesn’t have guns, red state legislatures, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College on its side–only Twitter and a few minor publications.

Abortion opponents like to analogize their crusade to the prohibition of slavery. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? It puts them on the right side of history. But is there a basis for it?

It has to be admitted that the two issues have features in common: both are moral/philosophical questions with very high stakes and rabid partisans. But they differ in two significant ways:

1. SCIENCE: There was never any legitimate scientific basis for claiming that slaves were inherently inferior to their white masters. On abortion, the claim that a fertilized egg is a human being is a purely religious proposition. Functionally speaking, it isn’t. Period.
2. FREEDOM: The abolitionists were fighting for freedom. The anti-abortion crowd’s objective is to reduce freedom for pregnant women. If they succeed in overturning Roe, you will consequently see something like an Underground Railroad for poor women living in red states. That tells you everything you need to know if maximizing freedom is one of your priorities.

And so, in the end, it is the differences in the two issues that are more significant than the similarities.

Prohibition was adopted in a two-step process. First, the Constitution was amended to mandate prohibition within a specified timeframe; then, a federal statute was approved to provide more specifics and give vague terms additional meaning. If Roe is overturned, the filibuster is abolished, and the GOP wins control of the presidency and Congress, would you expect the same process to be followed to prohibit abortions?

No. While I haven’t been able to find any authority explaining why the two-step process was used, there are two obvious reasons for it. First, the amendment made repeal more difficult; and second, the jurisprudence regarding the Commerce Clause was very different than it was today. The supporters of Prohibition undoubtedly felt that there would be serious constitutional objections to a measure that regulated behavior going well beyond the sale of alcohol across state lines. The history of the Supreme Court in the first years of the New Deal tells us that the apparent concern was justified.

While the Court has retreated slightly from its ultrabroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the last several years, there is no reason to believe it would strike down a nationwide ban on abortion on the basis of a lack of federal authority to impose it. A constitutional amendment mandating the ban, which is impossible in today’s world, would thus be unnecessary. The nationwide ban is consequently within reach of the GOP’s social conservatives; all it requires is a judicial decision for which a majority may well already exist, a sweeping electoral victory, and the will, either on the part of the right or the left, to ditch the filibuster. All of these developments are easily imaginable.

I drive a 2008 Toyota Solara with slightly over 100,000 miles on it. The car was obviously paid off over a decade ago. Now that I am retired, I only figure to drive 2-3,000 miles a year. As a result, the car costs me practically nothing, and I have no incentive to exchange it for a new one any time in the foreseeable future.

For Biden’s environmental plans to work, he needs to provide enough sticks and carrots for people like me to give up our gasoline powered cars in favor of shiny new electric models. What incentives can he possibly come up with that would be adequate to persuade me to invest a large chunk of my retirement savings for that purpose?

I can’t envision a subsidy that would be large enough to do the trick; the government would essentially have to buy the car for me. Improved mass transit is not the answer in rural and suburban areas, either. The only way I can see Biden getting to Point B would be to ban the sale of gasoline. Even a carbon tax wouldn’t work unless it is truly massive, which doesn’t seem very plausible in today’s political climate.

If this makes you think there is no perfect solution to the retrofit problem, you’re right. Gas powered cars are going to be with us for decades, even if the automakers aren’t building any new ones.

C: Thanks for coming.

S: Well, you created me. I didn’t have any choice.

C: I want to talk about the basis for your reactionary opinions. It appears to me that you agree with those who think, essentially, that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket. Christianity is no longer observed or respected; the government openly prefers the interests of minorities to those of white people; black mobs roam the streets of our cities; the internet is run and policed by leftists who don’t respect your values; and coastal elites who despise you get rich at your expense. The system has totally failed. It’s time to blow everything up and start over again. Is that accurate?

S: Yeah, pretty much.

C: So let’s start with the when question. When did America go to hell in a handbasket?

S: It starts with Bush, of course. His stupid war in Iraq–the one that people like me fought and died in–and his recession made everything that followed possible.

C: But Bush was a Republican! He spoke the language of fundamentalist Christians all the time! How can you blame him?

S: He fooled us. At heart, he was really a Democrat.

C: That would have come as a surprise to the Democrats. What happened after Bush?

S: Obama being elected made it clear that white people in America were in danger. We couldn’t take our position for granted anymore. We had to fight back.

C: So the 2008 election was a turning point for you? That makes sense to me. It’s not as if the nation has changed dramatically in terms of religious beliefs, social pathologies, or economic trends since 2000, but the election of a black man was a big deal.

S: Damn right! And Hillary called us deplorables! We made this country! Who the hell is that bitch to call me deplorable! Also, the legalization of gay marriage told us we couldn’t even count on the Supreme Court. Nobody in the establishment can be trusted.

C: Is it fair to say that you don’t recognize the culture of this country anymore, and something needs to be done about it?

S: Totally fair.

C: How did that happen?

S: The media, Hollywood, and the universities are all full of leftists. They turned America against God, guns, and real Americans. They want to brainwash us into believing that we’re evil, and that America itself was never great, except for minorities. That’s what the 1619 Project was all about.

C: But how did the media, Hollywood, and the universities come to be dominated by people who, in your opinion, aren’t real Americans?

S: It’s the Jews, of course. They dominate everything. They always did.

C: Where did you learn that?

S: On the internet.

C: So how do you fight back?

S: Political power trumps cultural power all day. Just ask the Chinese government. All we have to do is win one election, and we can fix the problem.

C: Even if the majority of Americans don’t see culture as a problem?

S: They’re not real Americans. We’re going to put real Americans in charge. That’s the key.

C: Given your demographic problems, how do you do that?

S: All we need is for the Democrats to screw up once. If we can win an election, we can create an emergency, and go from there.

C: But that would violate the Constitution!

S: The Constitution is not a suicide pact for real Americans. We’ll do what we have to do. No more, no less.

C: Does that include violence?

S: Whatever it takes. If my choices are violence or a concentration camp, guess which I’m going to choose.

C: What makes you think Joe Biden wants to send you to a concentration camp? What Democratic figure has advocated that? What experience have you had in your own life which suggests your rights are in danger?

S: Tucker tells me I’m being replaced, and we’re in the process of a new Reconstruction. He wouldn’t lie to me. Unlike the government.

C: What would you do, once in power, to impose your cultural values on the unwilling majority?

S: Religious requirements for officeholders and voters. Censor the internet and the TV networks, except for the few that support real Americans. Shoot anyone who comes out on the street and complains. That’s how it’s done.

C: You would turn America into a banana republic in order to protect the interests of white Christian men?

S: As far as I’m concerned, it’s already a banana republic. It’s just run in the interests of the wrong people.

C: Thank you for your time. It’s been very enlightening.

(Secretary of Defense Austin and Secretary of State Blinken have come to the Oval Office to talk about Afghanistan. Harris is also there, of course)

B: I’m on the verge of announcing my decision on Afghanistan, but I thought we could run through the pro and con arguments one more time. Lloyd, you have the remain position. Why should we stay?

A: Because we would lose credibility with the world if we don’t. Our national word won’t mean anything anymore if we abandon our friends.

B: We got out of Vietnam and Iraq, and people still take us seriously. Having the world’s best military and biggest economy will do that for you. Next?

A: We can’t be sure the Taliban won’t permit terrorists on their soil.

B: Are you more worried about Afghanistan than you are Yemen and parts of Africa? Is Afghanistan somehow special there?

A: Not really.

B: Next?

A: No one believes the Afghan government will survive without our support. There will be a bloodbath. Women will lose all their rights. Afghanistan will go back to the Stone Age.

B: That’s a legitimate concern, to be sure, but I don’t think America can afford to underwrite human rights in Afghanistan forever. Do you think the government will be better positioned to defend itself if we stay for, say, another year?

A: Honestly, no.

B: I agree. We either stay forever or get out now. Next?

A: The political fallout will be horrible. The GOP will say you lost Afghanistan, and that you’re soft on terrorism.

B: But we’re just implementing an agreement that Trump negotiated. Pompeo has applauded me for following it.

A: Mitch hasn’t, and the rest of the GOP will follow him.

B: I’m a big boy. I can take the criticism. That’s part of the job. Next?

A: It’s a matter of costs and benefits. The cost of keeping the troops there isn’t that great. It’s better than watching the video of the Taliban parade in Kabul.

B: That’s where I have to engage the other side. How many casualties are we suffering in Afghanistan today?

BL: This year? None. Last year? Nine dead–one in combat.

B: That’s less deaths than we have in an average domestic mass shooting. How much money are we spending?

BL: About fifty billion a year.

B: Sounds like a rounding error in the budget. Do we have a better use for the troops?

BL: Not my department.

B: Why should we leave?

BL: Because Afghanistan isn’t objectively important enough to stay indefinitely, and things will never get any better. Postponing the inevitable accomplishes nothing.

B: What about the argument that the cost of staying is minimal, and the risks of leaving are high?

BL: Fifty billion a year isn’t chickenfeed. We could use that money for something more useful. We can defend ourselves against terrorists in other ways.

B: What do we say when people accuse us of selling out Afghan women and children, and betraying our friends?

BL: The Taliban promised not to oppress women. They won’t get any aid from us if they do. We’re taking them at their word.

B: I’m afraid that’s going to sound like malarkey to most Americans.

BL: It’s the best we’ve got. Basically, most of the country is sick of the war and wants the troops to come home, regardless of the costs to the Afghans. I think Trump read the room correctly on that one. Make it clear that you’re following his decision, and the fallout will be tolerable.

B: I think you’re right. Prepare the announcement that we’re leaving no later than 9/11.

(They leave)

The simplest, most comprehensive, least intrusive, and most elegant solution to climate change is a carbon tax. By all accounts, Biden is not giving one serious consideration. Why?

Because the Bidenistas know what happened in France. It’s easy to imagine massive demonstrations and civil disobedience, abetted by the GOP, in response to a new tax, even if it is accompanied by a rebate. The disproportionate impacts on rural areas would intensify the culture war. The politics just don’t work, and for Biden, politics take precedence over policy.

If we do ever have a carbon tax, it will be initiated by the right, and justified with corresponding regressive income tax cuts. The PBPs are the only ones who can make it happen–an environmental Nixon goes to China.

Some GOP luminaries like to argue that we can’t afford to take action on climate change because the Chinese will just cheat and free ride off our efforts. While this is theoretically possible, it would have the following impacts:

1. China is far more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are. If the country fails to do its part, the impacts will definitely be felt domestically;
2. Cheating would be exposed, which would cause China to lose face all over the world, and would likely result in substantial new tariffs on exported goods to the US and the EU; and
3. China would be falling behind in the industries of the future. In the long run, it would be a disaster for the Chinese economy and for national security.

The bottom line is that we are engaged in a race to the top, not the bottom. The Chinese are looking to the future, not to preserve the not-so-glorious past. So should we.

After the Trump years, it’s much more difficult to talk about a fixed GOP ideology, but it’s fair to say that the following concepts are sacrosanct:

1. Regulations on business are always bad, because they unnecessarily drive up costs and substitute the government’s ideas of justice for the dictates of the free market.
2. Tax increases are always bad, because they reduce both investment and consumption, make products and services more expensive, and divert resources from a productive private sector to a clueless government.

With climate change, the problem for the GOP is that, if you really want to address the issue, you need to pick at least one of these two options. Is it any wonder that they simply prefer to call climate change a hoax?

Martin Luther was a nobody until he started to object in public to the sale of indulgences, a get out of purgatory card created by the papacy to finance the construction of the new St. Peter’s and some sketchy diplomatic initiatives.

The modern equivalent, of course, is right-wing religious and political figures begging for money and peddling worthless products on TV and the internet. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

During the Cold War, the US generally supported Pakistan against the claims of Soviet-leaning India. But the Cold War ended, Islamic terrorism emerged as a major problem for the West, and America’s relations with Pakistan changed. The Pakistani military consistently played a double game in Afghanistan, frustrating presidents of both parties. The Afghan war went on and on, inconclusively. And China started to rise.

The Pakistani military will have “won” the Afghan war after our withdrawal in a matter of months. This “victory” will leave the country far more vulnerable to Islamic militants than it was before. America is now primarily concerned about Chinese aggression, and is in the process of creating a loose alliance with India. The Chinese, for their part, are becoming the dominant power in this part of the world.

What does this mean? That Pakistan, with all of its volatility, poor government, nuclear weapons, and vulnerability to Islamic groups, will be China’s problem, not ours. Given China’s physical proximity and ongoing concerns about Islamic terrorism, it is far more vulnerable to Pakistani instability than we ever were. So good luck with your new problem, guys.

Update: it was #1. He said the poor white cop was lynched by a BLM mob. I’m not sure the Fox News watchers in middle America will follow him on this one, but they might, since they are trained to accept the narrative over the evidence before their eyes.