Cromwell

I started to suspect it when Ross Douthat wrote a wobbly column in last Sunday’s NYT. An article in Vox confirmed it; Viktor Orban has a big cheering section among mainstream right wing pundits in this country, including the author of “The Benedict Option.”

Call it “The Orban Option.” Why retire from secular life when you can hitch your wagon to a man who crushes every liberal democratic norm in sight in the name of Christianity? What’s freedom of speech, fair elections, a depoliticized judiciary, and clean government when you can get rid of abortion, pornography, and gay rights?

This is really scary, folks. The reactionary base in this country is already locked and loaded for illiberal democracy at best, and fascism at worst. Trump is too lazy and narcissistic to pursue this agenda single-mindedly by himself, but now he has Barr at his side. If the mainstream right is cheering him on, who’s going to stop him?

Only we can. This is looking like the real Flight 93 election, but for the center and the left, not the far right. If we can’t beat someone with Trump’s personality and record under the current conditions, what future does liberal democracy have in this country?

As I’ve noted before, the Hong Kong protesters remind me of characters from sixties existentialist movies; they know they will almost certainly be crushed in the end, but they continue to resist, because it ennobles them and affirms their humanity. It’s hopeless, but it’s inspiring, too.

So why is this happening, and where does it end? The answer to the second question almost certainly is, with blood. The protesters aren’t going to give up now, and the Chinese government has thrown down the gauntlet. The only real unknown is whether the Hong Kong security forces can be trusted to do the job, or whether it will be done by the PLA. My guess is the latter, but I could be wrong.

As to the attitude of the Chinese government, it is being shaped by a number of things. One of them is the belief that it has enough large financial centers, and no longer needs Hong Kong. Another is that the economic systems of the US and China are decoupling, so the bridge between the two will be increasingly useless. A third is the obvious intent of the Trump administration to make China a scapegoat for all of America’s problems. A fourth is concern about possible domestic political fallout from the pandemic. In the final analysis, however, the biggest factor is that the Chinese have come to believe that they can overcome any opposition in the rest of the world by threats of military force or, more often, by buying off their adversaries; softer forms of persuasion are no longer necessary. That’s a really bad sign for the future.

No! And I have as much authority to say that as he does to opine about state regulations on houses of worship.

According to Politico, Georgia isn’t seeing any massive increase in infections as a result of the governor’s relaxation of restrictions, but the economy isn’t showing any improvement, either. Prominent observers have concluded from this that the fate of the economy depends, not on the speed of deregulation, but on consumer confidence.

Well, duh. I said that two months ago.

So what are those stupid demonstrators going to say when the states are all open, and nothing is improving? Are they going to come picket in front of my house and demand that I start going to restaurants and bars again?

Obviously not. Since Trump disclaims any responsibility for the effects of the virus, they’re going to blame China. In reality, the speed of the recovery is in our own hands, but it depends on the degree of confidence that the government and private businesses have earned from American consumers. Right now, you would have to say that the private sector is trying to do its part, but the federal response has been a miserable failure at virtually every level, and the states have been a mixed bag.

The Chinese government’s decision to crack down on Hong Kong presents Trump with a difficult decision. On the one hand, he truly values his relationship with Xi, he doesn’t want to engage in any kind of a shooting war, he has no interest in promoting liberal democracy and human rights in Hong Kong (or anywhere else), and he knows an escalation of the trade war will cause his beloved Dow to plummet. On the other hand, being tough on the Chinese is the centerpiece of his campaign. What will he do?

Trump typically deals with contradictions in his policy by dividing the labor and sending mixed messages. You can expect that to continue with Hong Kong. He will authorize Pompeo, other members of his administration, and prominent GOP members of Congress to make very hard line statements about human rights in Hong Kong, while he himself says little or nothing on the subject. By doing that, he will think he can have the best of both worlds.

What it will mean in the real world is that the Chinese will take any objections from us with a grain of salt, and do whatever they want.

Trump’s favorite diplomatic tactic is to suck up to strongmen. No previous American president in my lifetime has done it to the same degree that he does. Why?

Because he looks at Xi and Putin and Sisi and Kim and Erdogan and the rest of the gang and sees himself. He knows that he demands that everyone around him fawn over him. That’s the way he decides to dole out favors. Why should the others be different? The world is nothing more than a stage for a handful of great men; if you can build a good personal relationship with them, everything falls into place.

Unfortunately for him, the world doesn’t actually work that way, and the strongmen in question are neither as stupid nor as susceptible to flattery as he is. That’s why his efforts at diplomacy don’t work.

When I need something to pick me up, I frequently watch a program called “Echo in the Canyon” on Netflix. The canyon in question is Laurel Canyon; the program, as you might have guessed, is a documentary about the music scene in the area in the sixties. It is full of shimmering sixties songs, and reflects the contemporary belief that, in America, all things were possible, and life would only get better.

It is that sense of optimism about the future, based on the virtues of limited government and individual freedom, that is the essence of the American dream. It is about the potential of new ideas as much as it is about having a bigger house and more cars in the garage. Ronald Reagan and David Crosby, both of whom lived in California at the time, wouldn’t have agreed on much, but they would have agreed on that.

Unlike any American politician in my lifetime, Trump doesn’t believe in the American dream. He sees a world filled with danger and fear, and promises to protect us from it with walls, tariffs, military power, and, of course, his unequaled genius. He appeals to people who see the world in the same way.

How do the Democrats combat this? By bringing back the dream, and putting our current problems in context. We’ve been in much tougher positions than this before. History tells us that we will prevail if we have decent leadership. That is all that we lack today.

Even the Republicans could see that it was necessary to compensate workers for the loss of their jobs during the shutdown. As a result, Congress approved enhanced unemployment insurance for a limited time on a bipartisan basis.

With the impending end of the lockout period, we are entering into a new phase, in which the legislative focus will change from a form of compensation to a more traditional stimulus. Republicans are already determined to claw back benefits from workers in order to assist their pro-business donors. And so, the expanded unemployment benefits, which will serve as a back door form of a minimum wage increase after the end of the lockout, will undoubtedly expire. Liability protection for employers from claims based on the virus will be on the table. Aid for state and local governments may be withheld in an effort to force those governments to impose layoffs and pay cuts on public employees. And so on.

The Democrats will resist all of this and launch completely justified attacks on the GOP as being anti-worker. Republicans rely largely on the votes of white workers; how will they respond? By attacking China and reviving the culture wars, of course, because distraction is what they do. Sometimes, it even succeeds.

Lindsey Graham, William Barr, and Mike Pompeo, all of whom are smart enough to know better, chose to become Trump sycophants in exchange for what they hope is influence over the decisionmaking process. They believe that more can get done inside the system, regardless of how flawed it is, than outside. As Sarah Palin might say, how’s that workin’ for them?

For Graham, the quid pro quo is a neoconservative foreign policy. His bargain has been a miserable failure. Trump is not, and never will be, a neoconservative. All Graham has received for all of his ostentatious sucking up is some degree of protection from the extreme right in South Carolina.

For Barr, the consideration is movement towards a system that empowers him to burn secular heretics at the stake. He has made some progress, but not much. Once a Trumpian judiciary is firmly in place, his prospects will improve. In the meantime, he has to keep doing thankless clean-up work for his master.

For Pompeo, the short-term payoff is a default to a foreign policy based on traditional American and GOP interests and values; the longer term goal is higher office. On the first, the record is a decided mixed bag, due to Trump’s frequent and unpredictable interventions; as to the second, the future is not yet written.

Like many before him, Ezra Klein observes that, based on its spending priorities, the federal government is an insurance company protected by a large military. More unusually, Klein concludes from this that the president’s job is to be a risk manager; it logically follows that Trump is a miserable failure. Is he right?

If your vote is determined by your economic self-interest, absolutely. However, if you’re an identity or vision voter, and the risk that you fear the most is rule by people other than what you consider to be “real Americans,” no. If you belong to the latter group, you elected Trump to disrupt the system, so if chaos ensured, he’s just doing his job.

According to today’s NYT, Iran is seeing a new spike in virus cases as a result of reopening prematurely for the overriding purpose of saving its economy. We may very well be headed in the same direction, and for the same reasons.

Trump and the Supreme Leader in the same boat! How ironic is that?

Yesterday’s Politico contained an article which correctly noted that the job losses resulting from the current depression are causing the Social Security Trust Fund to be depleted ahead of schedule. At the present rate, the trust fund will be exhausted around 2030, and benefit cuts will ensue. What will come of this?

The GOP is divided between business people and small government devotees who support entitlement cuts, and reactionaries who will be appalled by them. Trump and the GOP leadership, for that reason, talk about the issue as little as possible. Their ultimate objectives will be to take the elderly hostage, to avoid tax increases, and to force the Democrats to share responsibility for benefit cuts.

The Biden campaign needs to emphasize its proposal to shore up the system by modifying the current payroll tax threshold. This is a life-and-death issue for the elderly, and it would force Trump to choose between his wealthy business constituents and his reactionary base. It is a win-win for the Democrats if they play it properly.

Bret Stephens sees a cleavage in American society between privileged remote office workers and the army of essential workers who risk their lives to serve them. Stephens clearly views this division in Trumpian terms: the remote workers are the self-serving, meritocratic coastal elites, while the essential workers are Trump’s angry base. Is he right?

Hardly. The Democrats are primarily responsible for all of the worker-friendly legislation that made it through Congress over the last few months, while the GOP’s objective is to reopen businesses as quickly as possible in order to cut spending and force workers to choose between their jobs and their health. Trump and the GOP intend to eliminate the extra layer of federal unemployment benefits and to jam employer immunity legislation through Congress– not the Democrats. This, of course, is intended to please the small business owners who actually comprise the GOP’s base. They are the people who are attending the anti-lockout demonstrations with their assault rifles, not nurses or drivers for Amazon Prime.

So, yes, the cleavage exists, but no, it will not operate to Trump’s advantage in November. Essential workers are not entrepreneurs who are frustrated by government regulations; they are just workers, period.

Virtually all of the local TV commercials for businesses include similar patter about safe practices during the pandemic. Which ones will be believed?

It will come down to the general reputation of the business prior to the pandemic and to the public’s opinions regarding the credibility of the government. No one on the blue side has any faith in a man who takes unproven drugs and urges us to eat bleach. Why should we believe him when he tells us it is safe to go to restaurants again, particularly since we know his advice will be completely based on his personal self-interest?

For once, Trump’s lack of credibility is going to bite him in the rear end. It’s about time!

“The Last Dance,” now concluded, can be viewed as Michael Jordan’s case for being the greatest of all time. How does he stack up against LeBron James?

The two were very different players in different eras, which makes the comparison difficult. We have numbers and the eye test to assist us, however. Having watched both of them play a few zillion times, here is my take on the matter:

1. LeBron is unquestionably bigger and stronger. He could probably have matched MJ in his prime in a foot race over a reasonable distance. Michael was quicker in small spaces; he could change directions and get off his feet more rapidly. To a large extent, that was the secret of his success.
2. LeBron is a better passer and rebounder. Michael was the better shooter and overall scorer.
3. Michael was a great defender from the minute he set foot in the NBA. LeBron, at his best, was just as good, and was more versatile, due to his size; he had to grow into it over a period of years, however. Viewing their careers as a whole, you would have to give MJ the edge.
4. Both were/are great clutch players. For every iconic MJ shot, I can respond with a corresponding LeBron moment. It’s a wash.
5. Michael won more titles, but with a better supporting cast. LeBron’s Cavaliers were mediocre defensive and rebounding teams. It was due solely to him that the Cavaliers played in so many NBA finals, against clearly superior opponents. Only his Heat teams were remotely comparable to the Bulls, and the tape shows that Wade and Bosh were past their prime by the time Miami lost to the Spurs in 2014. I would call this a wash, although some undoubtedly would disagree.
6. I won’t be able to compare them as leaders until LeBron has his own documentary.
7. LeBron is a cultural phenomenon, but not to the degree that Michael was. Probably no one ever will be. “The Last Dance” makes that very clear.

On balance, like most people, I would give a slight edge to MJ. It’s close, however.