Cromwell

Bernie Sanders’ formula for winning the election was base mobilization–nothing else. As one of his young followers put it memorably on Twitter, “There are no @#@#@ swing voters!” He made no effort to accommodate centrists, or even to package his opinions in a way that was more palatable to them. The results speak for themselves.

Donald Trump operates in the same way, and with the same electoral model. He has done nothing but feed his base red meat for 3+ years, presumably because he thinks they represent a majority of the country. He believes they alone won him the 2016 election. He’s wrong, and the polls prove it.

If Biden wins, will everyone wake up and realize that there are, in fact, swing voters, and that you still need to move to the center to win national elections in this country? The center left already understands that. It’s doubtful the right does.

We’re all equal in the sight of the virus. It has no respect for racial or class distinctions. Rich or poor, young or old, black or white, man or woman–you can get it and spread it just the same.

It is a problem that demands concerted action by all of us. There is no rugged individual solution. It has to be us and our government–period.

Is it any wonder that we are failing so badly at this? And is it really a good idea for our leader to be doing everything in his power to harden our divisions under these circumstances?

Determined to create and use leverage that is denied to him by the Constitution, and desperate to show the voters that he is the benevolent despot he plays in his dreams, Trump signed executive orders on unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, and evictions yesterday. He undoubtedly thinks the public will give him great credit for these patently illegal actions. It is more likely that they will lead to yet more chaos.

On the UI issue, he is proposing to use money from a fund that will be needed during the height of hurricane season. Hurricanes or not, it will run out pretty quickly. The states will have to find money they don’t have in their pandemic-ravaged budgets to participate. It will take at least weeks, and possibly months, to reprogram antiquated state computer systems to make the new system work. Finally, the payments represent a cut from the previous entitlement. How much credit does he think he will get from the unemployed for that?

As for the payroll tax holiday, it does nothing to address the lack of consumer confidence that is driving the recession, it does not help the unemployed, and it is just a deferral, which means that anyone seeking to take advantage of it has to be prepared for a big hit a few months away. In all likelihood, most businesses will continue to pay as before in order to avoid the later big hit. In the meantime, Trump is blowing a hole in the Social Security and Medicare budgets, which won’t exactly endear him to seniors, and dividing his party. This is another political disaster in the making.

So how will the Democrats respond? Will they continue negotiations in the face of these illegal actions? If I’m Nancy Pelosi, I tell the GOP leaders in Congress that there will be no negotiations unless and until they acknowledge the executive orders are unconstitutional. If they don’t do that, and they probably won’t, then I sue.

There once was a Judas named Mitt.

In Trump’s GOP he’s a poor fit.

He’s viewed as a traitor

By millions of haters.

They’re just angry folks full of sh–.

Mitt Romney is a PBP on economic issues, but a CD on everything else. It is clear from the campaign commercials that he is now viewed as a hate figure–Judas for the 21st Century–by the mainstream of the Republican Party. What does that tell you about the future of the GOP?

That CDs, who used to make up a large percentage of GOP voters, are no longer welcome there. That the Reactionaries don’t want a big tent party. And, most of all, that the GOP is going to rely on friendly judges, the federal system, and vote suppression to stay in power. If they’re not even interested in keeping the voters they already had, what chance do they have to being a majority in this country?

Reactionary defenders of Trump’s response to the virus make the following arguments in his favor:

1. The virus is an act of God. No one can really do anything about it; and
2. Trump was acting as a principled federalist by acknowledging that the primary responsibility for dealing with public health issues belongs to the states, not him. He cannot be blamed for the failures of others.

This fatalistic approach (“It is what it is”) is, of course, a load of crap. The European countries and Canada (with comparable political and socio-economic systems) have done a vastly better job of keeping the virus under control, let alone China, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. And Trump’s idea of federalism, as I’ve noted many times before, is to take credit for successes and allocate blame to everyone else. At times, he has argued that he has complete control over public health issues as a “wartime president;” at others, he is just a poor, helpless giant whose only role in the process is to point fingers at Democrats and experts who are ultimately accountable to him.

That said, it is true that a variety of actors were responsible for our collective response to the virus, and not all of them covered themselves with glory. How much blame does Trump really deserve? A lot, as follows:

1. He did nothing to guarantee that the necessary resources were stockpiled and distributed to deal with the virus during the period of six weeks or so after the Chinese travel ban was put in place;
2. He is probably personally responsible for tens of thousands of deaths by making mask wearing a culture war issue, repeatedly minimizing the seriousness of the problem, and openly supporting the opponents of lockdowns. Does anyone seriously contend that his statements on these subjects do not influence his base?; and
3. Similarly, his repeated insistence that states open up as quickly as possible undoubtedly has contributed to what I would call Wave 1.5.

It isn’t just his ridiculous, but ultimately meaningless, statements about science (e.g., go eat some bleach!) that condemn him. It is the practical, fully intended consequences of the statements described above that will stand as his legacy on the subject. He will be judged by them in November.

Imagine that you’re Joe Biden, and you’re trying to design a set for your acceptance speech that is consistent with the times and creates the maximum contrast with Trump’s bombast. What do you do?

I would hire a small Protestant church for the speech. All of the overtly religious items should be removed from view, but the context would be clear from the pews. The audience should be a racially diverse group of friends, ostentatiously socially distanced, and wearing masks.

The speech itself should be intimate, positive, and quietly uplifting. Leave most of the negative stuff for the other speakers. Hope, competence, and unity are the message here.

Nothing could be less like the man on golf cart.

Cancel culture warriors will typically defend themselves against accusations that they are trying to limit speech by arguing that, in fact, they want to provide additional opportunities for the right kind of expression. The argument runs like this:

1. Every society recognizes that there are opinions which are simply beyond the pale, and should be suppressed wherever possible;
2. The decision on where to draw the line is made by parties in power;
3. Historically, this has meant that oppressed people have been unable to speak in public;
4. The opinions of members of oppressed groups, simply by virtue of their victimhood, are presumptively correct;
5. In many cases, they are so self-evidently correct that any opposition to them is clearly an affront to civilization as we know it;
6. Putting a limit on this kind of indecent speech is necessary to give the members of oppressed groups the confidence to speak; so
7. Therefore, putting limits on indecent speech, as we define it today, actually has the overall effect of increasing speech.

#1 is clearly a correct statement. #2 and #3 may be true in some respects, but they treat moral and cultural questions purely as functions of power relationships, which is not accurate. All of the other premises are, in my opinion, false. No one’s ideas are entitled to any special deference simply due to the identity of the speaker; it is outrageous to suggest, for example, that Judeo-Christian ideas on homosexuality which are supported by scripture and which have been nearly universally accepted for thousands of years are not even worthy of debate; everyone who wishes to participate in a public forum has to be willing to accept a reasonable level of criticism; and moving the window of decency to eliminate the opinions of tens of millions of Americans will only increase anger, not speech.

Strictly speaking, “cancel culture” refers to efforts made by members of the hard left through social media to enforce what they view as unassailable positions through the shaming of people who openly disagree with their orthodox (for the left) views. This can go as far as calling for boycotts of products and even the firing of the individual in question. Realistically, it only applies to members of the center left, as right-wingers have their own separate safe spaces on the internet and Fox News; to them, being attacked by the left is a badge of honor, not a source of shame.

Following Trump, however, many GOP candidates are running commercials attacking “cancel culture.” What do they mean by that, and are they right?

What they mean by “cancel culture” is attempts, as they see it, by the left to smear white Christian American history and culture. They fiercely resent efforts to depict America as an evil, racist state run by ignorant bigots who oppress people of color and heterodox sexuality as naturally as they live and breathe. They view themselves as an endangered minority threatened with extinction by a vengeful majority, with the support of the MSM and Hollywood. In their eyes, the only way to prevent the destruction of their heritage is to win and keep political power, by fair means or foul.

This is a completely inaccurate description of liberals in general, but it probably has a degree of justification as applied to millions of woke millennials. That day of reckoning is probably a decade away.

As it stands today, the Democrats can’t lose on the stimulus issue. If a deal gets done, it will have to be on their worker-friendly terms, and they will take the credit for it; if not, Trump and the GOP will get the blame for the disastrous results. How did this happen? Why would the Republican leadership be so stupid?

Part of it is the supply side ideology that blinds them to actual facts on the ground, of course, but part of it is just their constituency. When Republicans go home, they listen to what businessmen are telling them, because businessmen, not workers, are their donors, peers, and friends. In this case, it is clear that business interests are telling them that their workers would rather lounge in the hammock of dependency than work for low wages. Hence, the GOP recovery plan.

For business interests, this is a classic tragedy of the commons. The owners all want low wages for their own workers, but if they all succeed, only dollar stores will have any consumers, and the economy as a whole will falter. Do they really understand this? Probably not.

On the Democrat candidate Joe.

His lead’s around nine points or so.

He’s kicking Trump’s butt.

The unkindest cut

‘Cause Trump still insists he’s too slow.

To an economist, or even a businessman, there is no meaningful difference between a government spending program and a tax expenditure. Either way, the recipient winds up with more money in his pocket, thanks to the government. Money is money. It spends just as well either way.

To the average GOP voter, however, there is an enormous difference. A tax expenditure is just the government returning money that it never should have taken anyway to the pocket of its hardworking rightful owner; a spending program is a misguided attempt to redistribute income from a productive person to a lazy one–in all likelihood, a minority whining about racism and demanding cuts in line.

This is why deficits created by tax cuts are OK, while deficits created by spending are to be avoided like the plague. It’s the foundation for the CL/Reactionary coalition commonly known as the Tea Party, which is already starting to rear its ugly head again, and which will be in full throat if Biden is elected.

I’ve seen enough commercials featuring hard right doctor candidates in Florida and Tennessee to think it is a trend. What’s going on here?

It makes sense, from the perspective of both the Republican Party and the candidates. The GOP gets a candidate with plenty of his own money and good connections within the donor class; he can also be used as evidence that the party doesn’t really reject science. The candidates typically view themselves as hard-working, self-made men who have a right to deference from the public (call it “I built this” syndrome); self-interest also causes them to oppose M4A and even the public option.

How many of these guys will win? We’ll see in the next eight days.

Two things I’ve noticed about the GOP commercials in Florida:

1. Mitt Romney is a hate figure here comparable to Pelosi and the Squad. A variety of candidates are being accused of supporting his presidential campaign. What were they supposed to do–give money to Obama?
2. One of the commercials indicates that the candidate will help drain the swamp in Tallahassee. Given that Florida state government has been completely dominated by the GOP for over a decade, this makes no sense whatsoever. What it tells you is that the virtuous, angry outsider theme is so pervasive in the party, it even prevails over logic.

Anyway, everyone knows that the swamp is in Gainesville, not Tallahassee.

Ignore Stormy Daniels. Ignore Michael Flynn. Ignore Roger Stone. Ignore Michael Cohen. Ignore the failure to release his taxes. Ignore Mueller. Ignore his efforts to move the G-7 to Doral. Ignore the Trump hotel close to the White House. Ignore the attempts to hold the British Open at Turnberry.

Ignore his weird relationship with Putin. Ignore his sucking up to dictators. Ignore the failed attempt at regime change in Venezuela. Ignore his tariffs. Ignore his complete lack of direction with regard to China. Ignore his gratuitous attacks on NATO. Ignore the removal of troops from Germany. Ignore the betrayal of the Kurds. Ignore his failure to do anything to help our other friends in Syria. Ignore his pointless showboating with Kim. Ignore his new arms races.

Ignore Ukraine and impeachment. Ignore the deficits that his tax cut caused, and the lack of investment that followed. Ignore his trashing of environmental regulations. Ignore his racism. Ignore his attacks on American heroes. Ignore his failure to observe the rule of law. Ignore the revolving door around him, and the departure of the adults in the room. Ignore his failure to propose anything like a convincing substitute for Obamacare. Ignore Barr and Betsy DeVos. Ignore the attacks on the press. Ignore his lies and his narcissism. Ignore Stephen Moore and Judy Shelton. Ignore the inept response to the pandemic. Ignore his support of ineffective drugs, and his proposal to eat bleach. Ignore his unjust attacks on civil servants, judges, the intelligence community, the FBI, the Fed, elections officials, and most professional sports. Ignore his suggestion that the election should be postponed.

Hey, he gave us lots of conservative judges and tax cuts, right? He fights for our side in the culture wars, too. What more could you possibly ask?

All I can say is, that’s a whole lot of ignorance.