Cromwell

One by one, the statues were pulled down. It was 2050, and Generation BB was having its revenge on its Gen Z forefathers. The figures in the Black Lives Matter movement that the millennials had so admired were now in disgrace.

Why? They ate animals, for one. They didn’t do enough to eliminate inequality. Mostly, it was because they–believe it or not–owned vehicles powered by fossil fuels! They went on and on about the ownership of human beings, but there they were, knowingly destroying the planet, and they did nothing, just because it was in their self-interest. Who could celebrate the lives of such hypocritical monsters in our more enlightened times?

The Trump administration smashes records for corruption every day. In addition, recent reports in the MSM have made it clear that the influence of lobbyists has not in any way been curtailed, which is no surprise, given the close ties between key government figures and business. For all of that, GOP candidates are still running to “drain the swamp.” How can that be?

What Trump and the GOP mean by the “swamp” is inconsistent with the normal use of the word. To them, it has nothing to do with undue influence and corruption, in the usual sense. As they see it, the will of the people, as personified by the man on golf cart, is being constantly frustrated by evil establishment forces in the media, the civil service, and the legal profession. Anyone who maintains the rule of law and liberal democratic norms, and thereby prevents Trump from being Trump, is consequently part of the “swamp,” and must be eliminated.

Or, to put it a different way, long live King Donald, and death to his adversaries! If he is corrupt, capricious, and incompetent, at least he’s on our side! That’s what really matters!

Once again, Mitt Romney said it best; the commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence was “unprecedented, historic corruption.” And yet, for this president, it was just another day at the office. Everyone expected it. The base couldn’t care less. So what?

Will this kind of behavior be the new norm for our elected officials? I don’t think anyone else will have the nerve to try it, particularly if form holds and Trump loses in November. If he wins, however, it is fair to say that our standards have been redefined, and what happens next is anyone’s guess.

Trump moved the convention to Jacksonville because he wanted assurances that he could throw red meat to a large, adoring, unmasked crowd. How’s that working for him? Virus cases are spiking in Florida, Jacksonville is requiring masks in public places, donors are balking, and GOP celebrities are declining to attend. It figures to be a complete fiasco.

It’s also a perfect metaphor for his presidency.

Like Notre Dame, Hagia Sophia belongs to all of us, not just the Turks. Better beef up that advertising budget, Mr. Erdogan; Christian tourists are not going to be impressed.

The average reactionary will indignantly deny he’s a racist. He gets along fine with black people, he will tell you. He may even have a black friend or two. He just hates the bad ones: the lazy ones who lounge in the hammock of dependency, pick his pocket, and scream about being the victims of discrimination. He’s the victim here! He’s a hard working real American, but does he get any credit for it? No! The government just takes the little money he has and gives lazy people who don’t deserve it cuts in line through massive affirmative action programs. Then they riot and loot when they can’t get their way! That’s what he just can’t stand.

Now, multiply this profile by about a hundred million, and imagine trying to sell what amounts to a supercharged version of affirmative action to the electorate. Try telling this guy he has white privilege, and should feel guilty for it. He’s more likely to use his cherished Second Amendment rights on you than to agree with you.

Establishing a methodology to compute the amount of the payment is relatively easy if the intent is to close the wealth gap; this information is readily available from public sources. But the ultimate decision would be political. Three questions would be pertinent:

1. Would it actually do much good?
2. Would it bring closure to the issue?
3. Can we afford it?

So what is an appropriate number? We could clearly afford $1,000 per household, based on the most recent stimulus payment, but it wouldn’t be nearly enough to close the gap, and it wouldn’t put an end to the issue. $5,000–same thing. $10,000? Now we’re talking about an enormous hit to the budget, but it still wouldn’t be enough for a black family to buy a car, let alone put the issue to bed. No, based on the numbers I have seen, the payment would have to be at least $50,000. The budgetary implications of that would be immense.

From my perspective, putting this kind of money into social programs that are race-blind on their face, but disproportionately help black people, would make a lot more sense.

The center right and center left parties in Germany have been in coalition for years. Macron effectively represents both sides of the moderate part of the French political spectrum against populists on the right and left. In Italy, an erratic left-wing populist party formed a brief and unwieldy coalition with a far right party. Is this combination of moderates against extremists the future of American politics?

Probably not in the short run. As long as Trump is president, the left will be united against him, and Biden seems to be working effectively with Sanders supporters at the moment. In the long run, I can definitely see it happening, as elderly liberals die off and are replaced by cancel culture warriors and socialists. The moderate right has been moribund since 2008; it will ultimately have to choose between a coalition with the moderate left or with an extreme right that openly values racism and Christianity over liberal democracy. My guess is that we’re a decade away from a development that promises great danger for our political system.

I was guessing before the release of the decisions on the tax returns that the Chief Justice had the following objectives:

1. Protect the Trump re-election campaign from any embarrassing disclosures;
2. Avoid any obvious departures from precedent that would make the Court look overly partisan; and
3. Make sure that the opinions leave enough room for a future GOP Congress to investigate a Democratic president.

It appears that he accomplished all three.

The opinion in the New York case is unobjectionable. The cases involving Congress are going to make it significantly harder for the legislature to do its job. Given the outcome of those cases and the decision on Count II of the impeachment bill, future presidents with legal trouble will simply stonewall Congress and rely on delays in the judicial system to run the clock out. It will probably work, too.

Imagine that it is 1866, and you have been given the task of determining who should pay compensation to the freed slaves, regardless of practical issues and national boundaries. You would identify the parties that profited from slavery, right? The first among these would be the plantation owners, of course, but you would add a host of middlemen and textile manufacturers, most of them in the UK. Consumers throughout the world have benefited from the availability of cheap cotton clothes, but asking them to pay anything wouldn’t make much sense. The general population of the Union states, having endured the pain of the Civil War, would obviously be exempt.

It isn’t 1866, and you don’t have the luxury of disregarding practical issues and national boundaries. Both the criminals and the victims have long since left the scene. There is a lot of water under the bridge. What do you do?

The proponents of reparations argue that the federal government should pay, which, of course, means all American taxpayers. That means hundreds of millions of people who have no historical connection to slavery will have to pay the bill, including black people. Michael Jordan will be writing large checks to himself.

This is, of course, supremely illogical. It is, however, practical. By eliminating any clear tie to the descendants of the guilty parties, the fans of reparations make the program sound like just another federal program designed to address a social problem–not blood money for a crime. That approach is far more acceptable to people in my position who reject the notion of personal guilt for slavery.

Do administrative convenience and practical politics balance the program’s logical flaws? I leave that question to you.

I’ve written many times about the four GOP ideological factions and the four quadrants of the Democratic graph. How do the two fit together, and how is the picture changing?

As you might have guessed, the system as a whole consists of four groupings, as follows:

1. The Reactionaries, consisting of the Reactionary and CL factions of the GOP, make up 30-35 percent of the electorate. This is Trump’s base.
2. The Conservatives, consisting of the PBP faction and the few CDs that remain in the Republican Party, are about 15-20 percent of the electorate. These are the swing voters in November. Some will support Trump in recognition of his tax cut; others see him as dangerously incompetent, or worse. He needs virtually all of these votes to win.
3. The Liberals, otherwise known as the realo grouping of the Democrats, have about 30-35 percent of the electorate. This is Biden’s base. They hate Trump and support incremental change, but steer clear of socialism and political correctness.
4. The Social Democrats, also identified as the fundi grouping of Democrats, have 15-20 percent of the electorate. These are Sanders voters, and they are demanding radical change.

The most significant development of the last ten years or so has been the exodus of Conservatives to the Reactionaries and, to a lesser extent, to the Liberals. This movement to the right, due partly to the failures of the Bush administration and partly to blue victories in the culture war, has destabilized our system. Over the next ten years, you can probably expect a similar move to the left from the Democrats, mostly for demographic reasons. The Liberals and Conservatives may well find that they have more in common with each other than they do with the extreme elements of their respective parties.

What would that mean for the future? Europe provides us with a clue. More on that tomorrow.

Proponents of reparations tie wealth discrepancies to the effects of slavery, not the legal discrimination that followed during the next century. As a debating point, this is sensible, because it eliminates the need to deal with other kinds of discrimination that prevailed during the same period. But do the facts bear it out?

No. It is undoubtedly true that the former slaves had no property when they were freed in 1865. It is equally true, however, that tens of millions of immigrants who came to this country after 1865 carried their possessions in a suitcase, at most. Their success, relative to black people, in building wealth after their arrival cannot be attributed to that kind of a head start. It was undoubtedly due to the education and skills they had acquired before they immigrated.

The wealth gap is, therefore, partly attributable to an initial skills gap, but mostly to a significant difference in the degree and intensity of legal discrimination (i.e., discrimination against the Irish existed, but did not have the same effects as segregation) during the period between 1865 and 1965. A logical system of reparations consequently has to be based on the events that occurred during that period, or must focus on an outcome other than the wealth gap. The current proposal fails that test.

Like the Bolton book, the Mary Trump book fills in some details, but doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. Trump is a supremely transparent person; he never stops telling us who he is and what he thinks. Here is the gist of it:

1. The universe is amoral and purposeless;
2. The world belongs to the strong, shrewd, and ruthless, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just stupid or sentimental;
3. Every human interaction has a winner and a loser; and
4. Winning is ultimately defined by fame, money, and power.

That’s it. Even Trump’s other notable flaws–his racism, for example–are far less important to him than being a “winner.” Nothing else really matters to him. Hence, the dangers to the nation that are attached to the outcome of the election in November. If he wins, we lose; if he loses, he will do his best to destroy the system that let it happen.

Life in the time of Trump.

Another statue falls.

The Civil War’s not over yet.

We’ll win this time, y’all.

He’s wrapped up in the rebel flag.

He’s even questioned NASCAR.

But some of his supporters say

It’s just a bridge too far.

At this point, it isn’t clear whether Donald Trump is running to be president of the United States or the Confederacy. That is a bridge too far even for some of his strongest supporters, including bootlicker-in-chief Lindsey Graham. Still, he persists.

Can the GOP as a whole avoid being tarred as the POD (Party of Davis) in future elections? I doubt it. The party is so completely identified with Trump at this point, it will have to live with all of the consequences, including that one.