Cromwell

It can seem unfair to blame Reagan for what has been done in his name by his successors in the GOP. After all, he: had a sunny, optimistic view of America; raised as well as cut taxes; was willing to make deals with Democrats; appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court; and genuinely believed in the virtues of small government, not a cult of personality. In other words, he wasn’t an angry, bitter culture warrior who thought that tax cuts for business were a form of religious practice and that American liberal democracy was negotiable.

And yet, the fictional “Reagan” character that was created by the GOP leadership after the defeat of Bush 41 could not have existed but for the real item. He has to bear some of the blame for what happened thereafter.

The gold Trump statue tells you everything you need to know about the devolution of “conservatism” in this country. I’m surprised no one is burning incense or sacrificing animals in front of it. Seriously.

And to think that the man lost the election by seven million votes! Imagine what they would be doing if he had actually, like, won!

In the meantime, while “conservative” populists are letting the good times roll at CPAC, the GOP is playing the Snidely Whiplash party by voting unanimously against the Biden relief package–including the immensely popular $1,400 checks. Which version of the party will prevail in 2022 and 2024? Is there something plausible between the two extremes?

Probably not.

(Janet Yellen has come to the Oval Office to talk to Biden. Harris is there, too–always silent, but with open eyes and ears. One day, all of this will be hers!)

Y: Good morning, Mr. President! (Biden turns around and looks fruitlessly for Obama, then turns back)

B: Sorry. I keep looking for Barack. That’s the way it worked for so many years.

Y: I understand, Mr. President.

B: It should have been Beau, you know. I meant what I said about that.

Y: (With a small lump in her throat) The whole country understands, Mr. President.

B: But enough of that. What’s the deal today?

Y: I wanted to update you about the relief plan.

B: Right! The American people are suffering! They need help immediately! It’s our first priority!

Y: Things are going well, so far, but there are some concerns, even from economists on the left.

B: What are they?

Y: Inflation, and higher interest rates.

B: Inflation is bad stuff! It needs to be stopped! I can remember back in the seventies, when I was taking the train to Delaware every day. It seemed like the price of tickets went up every week! It was terrible!

Y: We don’t think it will be a problem.

B: You’re sure?

Y: There are lots of reasons. Recent history prior to the pandemic, and Japan’s experience, to name two.

B: So the concern is just a bunch of malarkey?

Y: I wouldn’t exactly call it malarkey, but we think it’s wrong.

B: Good! How’s it going with Congress?

Y: The bill passed the House. Now we have to get it through the Senate.

B: Well, just let me know if you need my help there. Those people are my friends. They used to call me the McConnell whisperer, you know.

Y: I’ve heard. We think we can get it through.

B: Good! Anything else?

Y: Everything else is on track.

B: Then go out there and build back better!

(Yellen leaves)

The polls consistently show that the Biden relief bill is extremely popular, even among Republican voters. Why, and what does it tell us?

It’s the $1,400 payments to middle class people, of course. More targeted payments, unless they go to very well-defined, sympathetic groups, don’t go over well with relatively affluent white people who love subsidies and tax breaks, but hate “welfare.”

What this tells us is that expansions to the welfare state, to have any staying power, need to include something like universal benefits. That may be bad policy in some cases, and it clearly increases costs, but it is definitely good politics.

I would say the pillars of orthodox Christianity are as follows:

1. LOVE: Love God and your neighbors as yourself.
2. FAITH: A gift from God and the key to salvation, it should be spread all over the world.
3. COMMUNITY: Christianity is a communal religion. The spiritual well-being of the entire community is paramount.
4. RIGHT CONDUCT: As defined in the Old Testament, with some tweaks in the New Testament.
5. SALVATION: Keep your eyes on the prize! Life on this planet is short. It’s what follows that really matters.

The Cult of the Big White Guy in the Sky, a/k/a the Reactionary’s Creed, goes more like this:

1. LOVE: You live in a tiny community, surrounded by cultural enemies who hate you. Fear them, and hate them back.
2. FAITH: Spreading the word to unbelievers is a waste of time. That battle has already been lost. Win and use political power to protect yourself and impose your values on your enemies.
3. COMMUNITY: The only community you recognize is among your fellow reactionaries. Everyone else is a scumbag, and a threat to your very existence. They must be crushed and kept powerless.
4. RIGHT CONDUCT: The survival of the reactionary community is paramount. You are entitled to engage in any kind of conduct necessary to protect yourself and other real Americans. If that means spreading lies and storming the Capitol, so be it.
5. SALVATION: Again, the survival of the reactionary community in the present world is essential. We’ll worry about the other stuff later.

As you can see, the two have little in common. The Cult of the Big White Guy in the Sky sounds more like a revolutionary party than a Christian group, and the reactionary “Jesus” sounds a lot like, well, Lenin.

If Trump chooses to run again in 2024, he will have to deal with the following questions:

1. He presumably will ignore his innumerable ethical issues and his inept and uncaring response to the pandemic, and will talk about returning America to the golden pre-pandemic days. But what if the economy is roaring in 2024? That would make pre-pandemic nostalgia pointless.
2. He will, of course, have to deal with the January 6 issue. He clearly can’t stand putting distance between himself and the extreme right. Would he do it in 2024? Would he cut himself off from a significant portion of his beloved base in an attempt to look respectable to moderate swing voters? If he does, would anyone believe him?
3. How will he respond to the rigged election question? If 2020 was rigged against him, surely 2024 will be; if so, what’s the point in voting for him?
4. Will he have anything to offer the American people as a platform except the implicit promise to destroy the “deep state” once and for all?

According to a recent poll published in Axios, more than half of white Republicans (is there another kind?) have serious doubts about being vaccinated. Viewed over time, the percentage was always high, but increased after the election, and still remains higher than the percentage for minorities or white Democrats.

What does this mean? That Trump convinced Republican voters that the virus was a hoax, so no vaccine is required? That Republican voters never believed in science, anyway? That Republican voters don’t trust vaccines that were created by private sector companies under protocols adopted under a GOP administration just because Biden is now president? That life under Biden is unendurable, and it would be better to die of the virus? That dying of the virus would be a way of getting even with the Democrats?

Probably some of all of those. Two things are certain: Trump is going to be responsible, in one way or another, for a lot of unnecessary deaths even out of office; and the vaccine will be more readily available for Democrats, which is good, because only living people can vote.

As I noted in a post about a year ago, it’s hard to make a convincing case for the filibuster in the abstract. It’s not in the Constitution. It specifically was not contemplated by the Founding Fathers. It cuts off deliberation, rather than enhancing it. It makes reasonably bipartisan legislation impossible; something closer to absolute consensus is necessary. Finally, it effectively shifts power from a paralyzed Congress to the executive and the judicial system in a manner that was never contemplated by anyone, and which frustrates a large segment of the population. In the end, this leads to government by litigation and furry Vikings.

Why does Mitch McConnell love the filibuster? Because it doesn’t stop him from doing what he really loves when he’s in power: cutting taxes and confirming right-wing judges. It prevents the Reactionary faction in his own party from jamming through unpopular social legislation that would ultimately cost the GOP seats and the PBPs their tax cuts. So, of course he loves the filibuster.

Will it survive? For now, yes. In the long run, no, because the Reactionaries have more and more control of the GOP. My guess is that it will be buried by the extreme right, not the left.

The Biden agenda is definitely a mixed bag for investors. On the positive side, taking vigorous action to end the pandemic and address its interim impacts is a plus, the infrastructure plan will help the economy, and putting an end to capricious tariffs will also help. On the down side, the planned tax increases on corporations will probably reduce share prices, and there is a possibility of an overheated economy, interest rate increases, and a corresponding fall in stock, bond, and real estate prices.

As of today, the markets seem to be assuming all of the news will be good; the tax increases, the inflation, and the interest rate increases won’t happen, but all of the good stuff will. That could turn out to be true, in which case the Democrats should prosper in 2022. It helps that the Fed seems to be determined to cooperate, and recent history is on Biden’s side. But what if the markets are too optimistic?

There is a very reasonable possibility that we could have a major shift in wealth accumulation from investors to workers by 2022 if the Biden plan, including the minimum wage increase, is implemented in its entirety. You can easily make a case that investors (meaning, left-leaning professionals as well as right-wing capitalists) gained disproportionately from the Obama and Trump years, and that workers are entitled to their turn. Biden hasn’t made this case to the public, however, and the political implications of a significant drop in stock and bond prices prior to the election could be very substantial.

Bret Stephens ranted about “cancel culture” once again in yesterday’s NYT column. As anyone who reads this blog is aware, I am sympathetic, but I have two questions for him:

1. Who is his audience for these diatribes?
2. What is he seeking to accomplish?

Typically, NYT opinion columnists write in the hopes of persuading the federal government to do something, or to stop doing something. In the case of “cancel culture,” we are talking about behavior by young left-wing activists that manifests itself on social media or, occasionally, at the local government level. The federal government in no way caused it, has nothing to do with it, and has no power to stop it.

This is a case of a million tiny tyrants. There is no Orwellian monster to restrain. Even GOP control of government at all levels won’t solve the problem–at least, not without massive and unwelcome changes to our system of government. If Stephens wants to get anywhere with the blue culture warriors, he has to convince them they’re wrong, not ridicule them or count on NYT readers to shut them up.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act basically puts the social media companies in the same position as the cable networks after the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine. They have no legal obligation to be gatekeepers, and plenty of economic incentives not to be, so they only do the absolute minimum necessary to fend off criticism from politicians and the public. As a result, lies and conspiracy theories fly around the internet at the speed of light, and the survival of our political system is in question.

Republican leaders correctly see Section 230 as being vital to the social media companies’ business model, but do not appear to understand that repealing it would work to the GOP’s disadvantage, since irresponsible right-wing partisans would suffer first from the ensuing censorship. In fact, the total abolition of Section 230 would be a mistake, as it would deter valuable as well as worthless speech. We don’t need what would amount to an unaccountable private sector Great Firewall of China.

The correct answer to the question is that Section 230 needs to be amended to make the companies liable for posts which include dangerous rumors and hate speech. Drafting this amendment will not be easy. Creating definitions of the kinds of speech which need to be eliminated will be complicated at best. It has to be tried, however. The status quo is unacceptable to everyone except liars and extremists.

From the 1950s until the 1980s, the regulatory scheme for TV was premised on spectrum scarcity. Since the American people as a whole owned the airwaves, they had a right to impose a public trust on the parties to whom they were leased. Part of the public trust was the Fairness Doctrine, which resulted in the exclusion of unbalanced and extreme opinions from TV. Every owner of a TV station was, in effect, a gatekeeper.

Technological changes made the concept of spectrum scarcity obsolete and ultimately led to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s. From that point forward, TV was treated as something similar to magazines and newspapers, even though, in reality, its pervasiveness and immediacy give it far more impact.

Today, in the real world, there are no TV gatekeepers. The business model for Fox News is to stoke the anger of reactionaries to a point just short of insurrection. There are no regulations prohibiting this; the Fairness Doctrine isn’t coming back any time in the foreseeable future.

The bottom line is that someone needs to talk to the Murdochs and persuade them that being the mouthpiece for violent reactionaries is going to blow up the country and cost them money in the long run. There is no other realistic solution to the Fox News problem.

The Democrats are, quite understandably, looking back at 2020 to try to figure out what went wrong, and how they can fix it in 2022. Good news, guys! I can already tell you that the 2022 election will revolve around two issues: whether Americans are better off then than they are today; and obstructionism and extremism in the GOP.

Since it is almost certain that the pandemic will be under control by 2022, the Democrats should be fighting this election on favorable ground. As to GOP extremism, that depends to a large extent on how prominent Trump is during the campaign.

The Republicans, of course, will want to make the election a referendum on “socialism” and “cancel culture.” In bright red states and House districts, that will work. Everywhere else, it won’t; “cancel culture” is not something that is imposed from D.C., and “socialism” in practice means $1,400 checks for everyone.

Imagine that you are running as a Democrat for a swing House seat in 2022. Your GOP opponent is predictably blathering on about how he represents real people against elitists like you. You respond by pointing out that you supported sending $1,400 checks to hundreds of millions of real Americans, while your opponent did not. When he says that he’s concerned about the deficit, you point out that he had no problems sending similar checks during the Trump years, and that Trump himself supported the additional payments. He has no plausible response to that.

The checks won’t help the Democrats get the Biden package through Congress, and they aren’t properly targeted disaster relief. They will, however, help in 2022. That, in a nutshell, is the case for them.

Immigration is one of the chief issues that divides PBPs and Reactionaries. If the Senate used a secret ballot on a comprehensive immigration reform bill, there would be enough PBP votes for it to overcome a filibuster. What does that mean for Biden’s chances of success with his bill?

Nothing, because the Senate doesn’t use a secret ballot. Illegal immigration is one of the signature issues for the Reactionaries. Given the passion of the extreme right on the question, the PBPs have learned to sit down and shut up. No matter what they might think privately, and regardless of whether they supported the Obama bill, they aren’t going to risk irrevocably splitting the GOP and facing a primary by acquiescing to the Biden bill. If you don’t believe me, just ask Marco Rubio.

Biden has a better chance with narrow issues, such as protection of the Dreamers. There, public support is so strong, the PBPs might be willing to step out of line. My guess is that we will see a Dreamer bill in a matter of a few months, after the comprehensive bill dies a quick death.