Cromwell

The Founding Fathers viewed the Electoral College as a handful of worthies choosing among their peers. Over time, this evolved, without any massive changes in the Constitution, into a state-by-state winner-take-all system based on popular votes. As a result of this strange and unnecessary system, the vast majority of votes are essentially meaningless, with all of the attention being placed on a relatively few number of votes in swing states. Can the system be revised to be more democratic without revising the Constitution?

Yes. The current system is only mandated in the Constitution to the extent that the Electoral College is required, and the number of votes given each state is set out. The document itself says nothing about a winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes within each state. In fact, that system is inconsistent with the FF’s original vision.

Allocating electoral votes based on proportions of the popular vote in each state would comply with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. How can we get there? Start with the swing states. Their elections supervisors are under enormous stress, and the parties know that a few popular votes can make all of the difference between winning everything and losing it all. Wouldn’t it be safer for everyone to use proportions? Wouldn’t it eliminate lots of stress for everyone? Of course it would. No more peering at hanging chads! Less at stake in suppressing votes! Wouldn’t that be an improvement over the current system?

If the entire country accepted this system, we would have something very similar to a national popular vote, and states which get no attention from the candidates today would matter, all without going through a hopeless amendment process. I just don’t see a down side to it.

For Trump, catching the virus cuts straight to the heart of the strength narrative. Even for his most avid supporters, who believe that his awesomeness resolves all contradictions, this has to be a source of dismay and confusion. But what happens next?

The mortality rate for the virus is less than two percent, at last count, and Trump has the best medical care available, so it is likely that he will be healthy and back on the trail in one or two weeks. His ultimate triumph over the virus will then be perceived as more evidence of his status as a right-wing superhero. Anyone who can beat the big, bad virus can eat Biden for lunch, right?

Fortunately, it will be too late to matter. The arc of the election has already been established. The only remaining questions involve voter suppression.

(Trump is in the hospital, facing the virus for the first time since March)

T: So, you’re back! I thought I told you to leave in March!

V: Yes, you flattered me; you threatened me; and you tried to bribe me. Nothing worked, because your usual negotiating tactics don’t impress me. I told you I was here to stay for awhile.

T: You’ve gone too far this time. You’re helping Sleepy Joe win the election. Why would you do that?

V: He shows me respect by wearing a mask. You mock me and deny me. You’re getting what you deserve.

T: But that would make me a loser! That just can’t happen!

V: In your own words, it is what it is. It’s like people who are captured. Americans would rather have someone who stays healthy.

T: I’m a big, strong man. I radiate strength. I’ll kick your ass!

V: You’re an old, fat man whose idea of exercise is to ride in a golf cart. It won’t be that easy for you.

T: You don’t plan to kill me, do you?

V: As you often say, we’ll see. One thing’s for sure: the country would be better off without you.

T: I’m tired now. I need to sleep. (He goes to sleep. When does he wake up? Stay tuned.)

If you’re Xi Jinping, you’re probably feeling pretty good right now. After a poor start, you’ve pretty well beaten the virus, your economy is roaring back, and America is imploding in public. Things could scarcely be better for you.

Still, serious long term problems persist that will present a major challenge for you in the long run. Here they are:

1. DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY: China’s rise has been fueled by the migration of hundreds of millions of working age peasants to the cities. Unfortunately, while the Communist Party confesses error about as often as Trump does, the one child policy has been a demographic disaster. The country is aging rapidly, and there are few poor peasants left to be harvested, which means the cost of labor is going to rise substantially.
2. WHERE’S THE WELFARE STATE?: China has a very skimpy welfare state. It keeps costs down by relying on families and communities to take care of their own. That works perfectly well when the family remains intact in a rural setting, but China is a very different place today. The government will ultimately have to stop counting on Confucius to do its work for it. Costs will go up dramatically.
3. WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD: America abuts Canada and Mexico. China, on the other hand, abuts Russia, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, and North Korea. Not exactly the same thing.
4. CLIMATE KILLS: Battles with the weather have played a big role in Chinese history. That is going to happen again with climate change. Large parts of the country will struggle with too much, or not enough, water.
5. CORRUPTION IS A FEATURE OF A ONE-PARTY STATE: Without competition or a free press, there are few safeguards against corruption except the energy of the CCP’s leadership. Xi has mostly delivered on this point, but he was campaigning largely against his political adversaries. What happens five years from now, when everyone in a position of power is his friend? Will he really be willing to purge his allies, too? They probably doubt it, and so do I.

Trump has the virus. I’m not even going to pretend I’m sorry. I just hope it doesn’t win him some kind of sympathy vote.

More than anything else, including racism, regressive tax cuts, and reactionary views on social issues, Donald Trump’s brand is based on testosterone. In his view, swagger translates to strength, and strength is the difference between winners and losers. And so, he attacks relentlessly, and never admits to backing down, even when he does, which is more often than you would think.

Trump’s behavior at the Cleveland debate was completely consistent with this guiding principle. The problem is that it didn’t work; even some of his fans were put off. So what does he do now? Back off and implicitly concede that his bullying tactics aren’t working, or double down in the face of clear public disapproval?

As Biden would say, he is what he is, so I think you’re going to see just a slightly toned down version of the same madman at the last two debates. He’s simply not capable of changing course at this stage in his career, if indeed he ever was, which is questionable.

Years ago, I heard a joke to the effect that if you wanted to seize power in America, you would have to find it first. While Trump is doing his best to challenge this proposition, it is largely true. Power in America is highly decentralized, partly by historical accident, and partly because the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. American government is designed to maximize personal freedom, not efficiency.

The Chinese system is obviously completely different. There are few checks on the central government in practice, and none in theory. The only limits on its power involve time, space, and quick access to information. With AI, even these are dwindling rapidly.

Which is better? The pandemic is a case in point. In the long run, the Chinese system clearly worked better. However, that system also limits transparency and discourages local officials from taking any initiative to solve problems. The fact that the virus got out of control in the first place is largely due to those features of the system.

The bottom line is that the American system is typically slow and creaky, but is perfectly capable of mobilizing public opinion and working competently in a crisis–just ask the Nazis. A more efficient, centralized system also magnifies any mistakes that the Chinese central government may make; the Cultural Revolution is a perfect example. And what if you get a Donald Trump (think Bo Xilai) as the leader of such a system? It could happen, and the potential impacts boggle the mind.

At Tuesday night’s show from the ‘land

The Don got a bit out of hand.

He thinks that the rules

Are fit only for fools.

How many such scenes can we stand?

Investors have always given Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt. They have consistently ignored Trump’s tariffs and capricious interventions and focused solely on his tax and regulatory cuts. Why? I think it is because they see him as a businessman, and thus a kindred spirit, regardless of his other shortcomings. You could call it identity investing.

But Wall Street hates uncertainty. The prospect of a prolonged conflict after the election, and even blood on the streets, has to be unnerving. Logically, that should be particularly true after Trump’s completely unhinged performance at last night’s debate.

Will we see problems with the markets if the aftermath of the election is as Trump advertises? My guess is yes, but not until then; investors are still in denial as of today.

The single most important thing to remember about reactionaries is that they are angry. As they see it, they built this country, and made it great. Today, their skills don’t have the value they used to as a result of the evolution of the knowledge-based economy. They have suffered a diminution of status as a result. The government, for its part, ignores their plight and gives their hard-earned money to lazy minorities who would rather whine about racism than put in an honest day’s work. Their culture and values are threatened by perverts and illegal immigrants, and the coastal elites, who are prospering while they struggle, are laughing and sneering at them. No wonder they love Trump! He tells off their enemies every day! No one else does that.

The question after last night’s disgrace is whether there is any point at which Trump’s antics become too much even for this crowd. I suspect not. The more stupid, grating, and obnoxious he is, the better they like it. That is the unique insight that Trump has brought to our political system, to the cost of everyone who isn’t a reactionary.

Of course, as I’ve noted innumerable times, Trump’s base isn’t big enough to win him a fair election. He has come to realize that, but instead of widening his appeal, he has decided to try and break the system. That, alas, is where we are today.

Now I work down at the car wash

Where all it ever does is rain.

Don’t you feel like you’re a rider on a downbound train?

——- Springsteen

To be honest with you, I couldn’t bear to watch most of that. I followed it through the NYT’s live analysis. It seemed safer that way.

Biden’s objectives were to avoid looking like a senile old man, to prevent Trump from rolling all over him, and to convince everyone that voting was worth the effort, because Trump would have to leave if he lost. He succeeded admirably in the first two; I don’t know about the third.

Having failed to prove that he was the alpha male, Trump just resorted to abusing everyone around him, playing to his base, lying, and implicitly threatening to call his supporters on to the streets when he loses. There was no evidence of any effort to win over undecided voters, especially suburban women. Rachel Maddow said he was running against the election, not Biden. That sounds about right.

What a ghastly advertisement for our system! I feel like I just watched an episode of domestic violence on live TV. I’m not sure I care to repeat the experience two more times.

Should the Chinese welcome or fear a Biden presidency? It’s a mixed bag. On the plus side, he might be persuaded to lift those stupid tariffs and negotiate more reasonably, and his relative predictability reduces the likelihood of stumbling into either a trade or a shooting war. He will also be looking to cooperate on climate change. On the down side, his complaints about human rights would be unwelcome, and he’s likely to be much more effective than Trump (who doesn’t really even try) in persuading the Europeans, Australians, Japanese, South Koreans, and Indians to join a united front against Chinese aggression.

What are the chances of a President Biden engaging in a shooting war to protect Taiwan? I honestly don’t know the answer to that one. He probably doesn’t, either.

From Trump, we will get lies and nonstop aggression, because, true to form, he believes that the aggressor will be seen as the winner regardless of the substance of the discussion. In some cases, there is some merit to that, but not this one; obnoxious behavior is unlikely to sell him to the suburban housewives he is trying desperately to win over.

From Biden, we will see pleas for decency and unity and lots of counterpunching. Most of the memorable lines from past debates were counterpunches, so this is an advantage for him. Be ready with those zingers, because there will be plenty of opportunities to use them.

Both candidates will reinforce the public perception of their respective personas. As a result, nothing will change.

In terms of the election, no. His base doesn’t care; the blue team already understood what he was; and if I’m right about the motivations of the handful of undecided voters, their concerns lie elsewhere.

But in going forward after the election, yes. If Biden wins, the narrative about plutocrats not paying taxes will be much easier to sell to the public. If Trump wins, the intersection between policy and his debts is going to be a major theme of the next four years.

To understand the strategic importance of Taiwan, just look at a map. It lies in the middle of the principal sea lane to Japan and South Korea. If America ultimately chooses to acquiesce to a PRC takeover of the island, the Chinese will have a foot on the necks of those two countries.

Then what? Neither Japan nor South Korea is in any position to wage war against China. They will turn into vassal states; their current liberal democratic systems will remain in place, but they will be required to follow the Chinese line in everything that matters.

In other words, it will be a big step in the reconstruction of the Chinese Empire. Everything old is new again.