Cromwell

Marxism is a European idea which purports to identify a universal law of history. The CCP pretends to believe it, but in reality, it has no use for universal laws of anything. Its real ideology is Chinese exceptionalism. As a result, the Chinese leadership is only responsive to arguments based on national self-interest.

How can this work in practice? Take the Uighur issue. There is no point in framing an argument based on universal human rights when the Chinese don’t even accept that concept. What you can say, however, is that public opinion throughout the world is outraged by the Uighur camps, and that Americans in particular fear the prospect of being sent to similar camps if China ever becomes the predominant power in the world. China’s rise will thus be imperiled by international opposition if it continues to oppress its own people in such an outrageously blatant way. Is the short term benefit worth the long term risk?

By all accounts, the Chinese are painfully aware of the analogy between the condition of their rising country and Germany prior to World War I. The issue has been studied extensively, and in public. I think they even had a TV series on it at one point.

Unfortunately for the Chinese, and possibly the world, Xi Jinping seems to have skipped school that day. China’s aggressive, nationalistic behavior is resembling that of Imperial Germany more by the minute. The change in tone probably helps Xi at home in the short run, but in the long run, it’s likely to unite a large part of the world against him.

We know what happened to Germany. Does Xi really want to risk the same fate?

You’ve probably seen the series of Progressive Insurance commercials featuring a character named Dr. Rick, a life coach who teaches young homeowners to avoid becoming their parents. In the most noteworthy episode, Dr. Rick throws a plaque with a folksy message that is obviously loved by its young fogey owner in the trash.

Dr. Rick is an advocate for an aesthetic I call “millennial neoclassical:” a stripped-down, digitally-oriented design style which emphasizes light, open spaces, natural materials, and experiences over the accumulation and display of mediocre stuff. The series obviously urges young people to embrace that aesthetic and to reject the clutter that is characteristic of their parents.

Younger people probably find the commercials hilarious. Older people, on the other hand, undoubtedly see the enforced rejection of their values as a metaphor for “cancel culture” and fear it. What else would you expect from a company that calls itself “Progressive?”

Me? I’m indifferent. I don’t hate millennial neoclassical, but I don’t have an ideological loathing of stuff, either.

I had a dream a few nights ago in which an unscrupulous guy contracted with members of the Progressive Insurance TV team to take out a life insurance policy on a family member whose death was apparently imminent. Unfortunately for them, the guy refused to die. Increasingly desperate, the team kept trying to expedite his mortality in a variety of ways, but without success. Finally, they decided to hire a hit squad. Their plan went awry when they lost time engaging in lengthy arguments about the ethnic composition of the squad.

Even hit squads have to be diverse! Hey, they don’t call it Progressive Insurance for nothing!

Unlike Trump, Mitch McConnell didn’t want to overthrow the government; he just wanted to prove that it doesn’t work. During the Obama years, he accomplished this by either engineering or exploiting a series of crises, mostly involving shutting down the government or refusing to lift the debt ceiling. It has to be assumed that he plans to do the same thing to Biden; after all, it succeeded last time. How can he be resisted?

By doing the following:

1. Use reconciliation to expand the safety net on a relatively universal basis in order to establish that government can, in fact, help average Americans;
2. Try to avoid raising the temperature on the culture wars;
3. Make it clear that the political environment is different today than it was in 2010, and that creating unnecessary crises consequently carries with it a whole different set of risks than it did before; and
4. Don’t back down from any unprovoked GOP aggression, particularly on the debt ceiling. It only makes things worse in the long run.

George W. Bush understood the Reactionary/PBP deal as well as anyone; after all, he promoted anti-gay referenda in several key states in order to goose reactionary turnout in order to save himself and his regressive tax cuts in 2004. In many respects, his presidency was a disaster, both for his party and for the country as a whole. But while Bush could employ cynical partisan tactics, you couldn’t reasonably call him a vandal; he was genuinely interested in policy and good governance, however mistaken he might have been in the execution.

That all changed with the GOP’s response to the Great Recession. Mitch McConnell, as the de facto leader of the party, had a choice to make: would he work with the Democrats to try to pull the country out of its deepening hole, or would he just do whatever it took to regain power? As we know, he picked the latter. Worse, it became clear to him that the best course for the GOP was not to provide constructive policy alternatives to improve the lot of Americans as a whole, but to try to destroy the very idea that America could be governed effectively by anyone, even his own party. Having killed off the idea of a successful federal government, McConnell could then promote tax and regulatory changes in order to transfer money and power to his donor class, who, in his view, were the only people capable of actually running the country.

And so, from 2009 on, the GOP has been a party of vandalism: debt ceiling crises; government shutdowns; conspiracy theories; blatant abuses of traditional norms; lost civility; and, finally, an attempted insurrection. Trump wasn’t an outlier in this process; he was its logical outcome. Has McConnell learned his lesson? The bulk of the evidence since January says no.

Yes, but not necessarily in a way that makes federal legislation more likely.

Fifty years ago, gun-loving reactionaries were predominantly Democrats, and gun legislation was not a partisan issue. Supporters of gun rights were rightly feared by Democrats as single-issue swing voters. As a result, many Democrats could be intimidated into opposing gun legislation.

Today, things are different. The reactionaries are all Republicans. We’ve had an untold number of massacres, mostly with assault weapons. Like opposition to abortion and other culture war issues, guns are completely associated with the GOP. The Supreme Court, a majority of whom were appointed by Republicans, is also solidly pro-gun.

Where does this leave us? Federal gun legislation is impossible as long as the filibuster is in place. Gun restrictions are possible in blue states, because there aren’t many pro-gun swing voters among the Democrats. However, the Supreme Court is waiting to invalidate at least some of the new restrictions.

Here’s where the factions stand on guns:

1. CDs: Reasonable gun regulations are a logical, appropriate way to protect the community from violence.
2. CLs: Gun regulations are an intrusion on personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
3. PBPs: Not our issue, man. We’ll align ourselves with whatever faction can deliver tax cuts and deregulation for business.
4. Reactionaries: Guns aren’t just objects; they’re symbols of our virility, independence, and reverence for tradition. You’ll have to pry them out of our cold, dead fingers.

Since the Reactionaries are the largest faction and the most passionate on the subject, they always win. That is why the GOP has no interest in even the mildest form of gun regulation.

Imagine that you are Nicola Sturgeon. You have every reason to believe that an independence referendum would pass if it were held today, but the British government has no intention of permitting one. The arguments in favor of British independence from the EU do not, it seems, apply to the Scots. What do you do?

Your decision is informed by two precedents: Catalonia and Ireland. The first tells you that unauthorized referenda don’t end well, and that you can’t expect any support from the EU. The second tells you that success is possible if your political efforts are backed by widespread violence. You don’t have any interest in forming an SRA, so the terrorist option isn’t on the table.

You have two choices. In the short run, you could try to coerce the government with a general strike. The problem, of course, is that you don’t have the kind of unanimous public support that you would need to make a general strike work. In the longer run, you can hope that, at some point, the SNP holds the balance of power in Westminster, and that Labour is desperate enough for power that it will agree to a referendum.

Is the latter scenario likely in the foreseeable future? No. But what better option do you have?

America’s loving the stim.

The odds on inflation are slim.

Biden rides high.

Republicans cry

But they can’t lay a glove upon him.

Can the UK find a way to enhance GDP growth in spite of Brexit? You have to think that Boris will be taking a hard look at what happens in the US. If the American economy roars as a result of loose fiscal and monetary policy, why wouldn’t the UK try something similar?

Admittedly, the condition of the two countries is different. The impact of a dramatic drop in the value of the pound would be far greater than a decline in the value of the dollar. But Boris is a gambler, and he prefers bold strokes to slow grinds. You have to think that he would accept the risks here if the prize is growth that would justify Brexit in the eyes of the doubters.

(Chuck Schumer and Secretary Mayorkas have come to talk immigration with President Biden. Harris watches silently, as usual)

B: Mr. Secretary! Chuck! How are you doing?

S: Fine, Mr. President.

B: What’s the occasion?

S: We need to talk about immigration, Mr. President.

B: Immigrants! Salt of the earth people! America was built on their labor! They need help, right away! What’s happening with the comprehensive reform bill?

S: It’s stuck in the mud. The Republicans won’t vote for it, even though some of them actually support it. They’re too afraid of the base.

B: What a bunch of malarkey! Do you need me to call Mitch? Barack used to have me deal with him all the time. They called me the McConnell whisperer back then, you know.

S: Mitch isn’t really the problem on this one. Opposing immigration has become the GOP brand, even though their donors don’t agree with it. It’s all about the reactionary base for them.

B: Well, we need to get something done. If you want me to call Mitch, just let me know.

M: In the meantime, we have a bit of a crisis at the border.

B: What’s that about?

M: With Trump gone, everyone is assuming the border is open. We’re being deluged. We don’t have enough facilities for all of the newcomers.

B: The border isn’t open. We’re still running a system here. We’re going to be humane about it, but we’re not letting everybody in.

S: In the meantime, the Republicans are pounding you for reversing Trump’s policies on Fox News.

B: If I’m being accused of being humane, I can live with that. We’re not going to mistreat anyone. At least, not deliberately.

M: We’re not the only ones with this dilemma. The EU and Australia have it, too. If you treat illegal immigrants decently, they think they have a green light to come, and you get more of them. If you brutalize them, you have to look at yourself in the mirror.

B: We’re always going to treat people decently as long as I’m president. I’m willing to accept the consequences of that. Anything else?

S: No, Mr. President. (They leave)

It will come as no surprise to serious observers that the implementation of Brexit is not proceeding smoothly. Among other things, the UK government is flirting with reneging on the required soft Irish Sea border with the EU, and the predicted paperwork nightmare is slowing trade and driving up costs.

Fortunately for BoJo, the pandemic is putting these issues in the shade, but that will not last forever. Then what? The newly freed UK will have to deal with the following problems:

1. LOST GDP: At some point, the British public will start to notice that growth is being stunted as a result of Brexit. Growth isn’t everything, but it certainly isn’t nothing.
2. CONFLICTING VISIONS AMONG THE BREXITEERS: Brexit was sold to liberals as an opportunity to turn London into Singapore-on-Thames: an agile, minimal state open to engagement and investment with the entire world. Unfortunately, most Leave supporters saw the referendum as a means to be protected from the same forces of change and creative destruction that are so embraced by liberals. The two visions are mutually exclusive. Something is going to give.
3. SCOTTISH NATIONALISM: The Scots have a strong argument after Brexit and the last election that the UK government no longer speaks for them. There is little doubt that a second independence referendum would pass if it were held today. It won’t be, but the resulting friction will be an ongoing theme of the current administration.

How can these issues be resolved? I will throw out some ideas in two future posts.

The attitude of American conservatives towards government can be summed up in two words: it sucks! It can’t do anything right. It favors the weak and unfortunate over the strong and productive, and it takes away your money and freedom for all the wrong reasons. It can’t even do things that everyone wants properly. Better to dismantle it and give all of the money and power to rich businessmen who can get things done; then watch America soar!

The problem is that some problems simply refuse to be solved by rugged individuals. Then what do you do, if you’re a conservative? Here’s the menu:

1. PRETEND THE PROBLEM DOESN’T EXIST: The classic example of this is climate change, of course, but others include the rise of China (it’s about to implode, because, logically, it has no right to exist) and the pandemic (just ignore it and get on with your life).
2. CHANGE THE SUBJECT: Who cares about the pandemic? The real problem is Mr. Potato Head!
3. IF THE FIRST TWO FAIL, ACCEPT THE LOSS OF POWER TEMPORARILY AND DO YOUR BEST TO SABOTAGE THE DEMOCRATS’ RESPONSE: This was the GOP’s response to the Great Recession.

As a philosophy of government, this leaves something to be desired.

BoJo’s response to the pandemic has been a bit chaotic, because, well, BoJo has a chaotic brain. That led me to ask the question: how would Thatcher have dealt with the virus?

It’s an interesting question, because the evidence can take you in two completely different directions. On the one hand, Thatcher was driven and competent, listened to technical experts, and certainly was capable of imposing authority on her people when necessary. On the other hand, she obviously believed in economic freedom, and would have had issues with running up deficits to compensate people for enforced inactivity. Which of these trends would have prevailed?

My best guess is that Thatcher would have understood that her usual philosophical tool kit wouldn’t work in a pandemic, and would have reacted accordingly. We’ll never know.