Cromwell

Here’s a thought experiment for you: would the country be as concerned about the effects of globalization if the lost manufacturing jobs had gone to the UK, instead of to China?

Didn’t think so.

The rise of China, and its increasingly aggressive and repressive behavior, are definitely legitimate concerns for America and its allies (to the extent we still have any). It is undeniable that China owes its greater strength largely to the effects of trade agreements signed over the last 20 years. Globalization and the Chinese challenge are not, however, the same phenomenon, and do not call for the same response. It would be a mistake to forego all of the benefits of globalization when the real issue is more narrow than that.

Any normal president in the middle of a pandemic would seek to unify the nation through ostentatiously strong leadership. That isn’t in Donald Trump’s playbook. He thinks that his unique combination of swagger, scapegoating, angry populism, and support for the red team in the culture war will be enough to carry him to another narrow victory. It is an approach based on division, not unity. Can it work?

Based on the results of the 2016 and 2018 elections and three years of polls, he has no realistic chance of winning the popular vote. He doesn’t care how many votes he wins, however, as long as they are the right ones. If he can pull off narrow victories in all of the blue firewall states, his built-in advantage in the Electoral College will carry him to a win regardless of the outcome of the popular vote.

To me, the key is going to be vote suppression. If Trump can reduce the Biden vote substantially through effective negative campaigning, virus-related restrictions, or the threat of violence, he has a decent chance regardless of the state of the economy. Otherwise, this ain’t 2016, and all of his anti-China commercials aren’t going to persuade people who are unemployed or feel threatened by the virus to give him a second chance.

Empires aren’t much use during peacetime. You have to bear the costs of administration, and what do you get in return? During wartime, however, an empire can be an invaluable source of men and materials. Great Britain probably wouldn’t have survived either of the two world wars without one.

So it is with globalization. You can certainly argue about whether the fruits of free trade have been distributed fairly within the developed countries, but that is a matter of internal politics; what cannot be disputed is that the world as a whole is much wealthier as a result of the current trade regime. Free trade is not realistically possible, however, in a pandemic or a war. What does that mean for the future?

If you’re Donald Trump, it proves that free trade is a mistake, and that we should be doing everything in our power to bring manufacturing back to the US. But do we really want to create an economy based on import substitution, like Russia’s? Do we want to live with poor quality, overpriced domestic products in lieu of imports 100 percent of the time because that system would work better 5 percent of the time?

No. Some adjustments should be made. Commodities that are absolutely essential to national security should be made here or stockpiled. Otherwise, trade should remain free, and there should be a strong, but rebuttable, presumption against protectionism in every circumstance.

My fellow real Americans:

We’ve had some tough times lately. That virus is bad. BAD! You might have lost your job and your health insurance, and even gotten sick, but I’ve had it worse than you. I’ve been stuck in the White House, and I haven’t been able to do any rallies. It’s been torture, I tell you. But I suffered in a good cause.

Now the tide is turning, and we’re going to start fighting back. We’re Americans, remember! When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, did we just stand there and take it? No! Americans are tough! We’re winners! We always fight back, and we never lose! Just like me!

These could be the best days of your life, so don’t just piss them away! Get even with the virus, and the Chinese! It’s time to take your life back!

So tonight, I’m telling you to go out to restaurants and bars again. Get on a plane. Go spend some money. Have a good time. Stare the virus and death in the eye, and tell them you’re an American, and you’re not afraid. And don’t wear one of those wimpy Chinese masks–no real American does that! I don’t! Sure, I make the people around me wear one, but I don’t!

Do it for yourselves. And for me. In the end, it’s all about me. You know that, and I do, too.

Trump blesses you all. As for the blue people, who cares? The more of them that die of the virus, the fewer votes for Biden!

Good night.

(Inspired by a famous scene in “Animal House”)

April 1, 1945

German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler assured his countrymen that the war was going well and that total victory was imminent at a press conference yesterday morning. When asked about reports that Allied troops had already moved into Germany, he dismissed them as “fake news.” When it was noted that this information had actually come from his own propaganda department, he said that any German defeats were caused by the Jews, not him. Upon being advised that the Jews had been exterminated, so they couldn’t be responsible for any German defeats, Hitler then blamed Mussolini for failing to carry his part of the load. When a reporter pointed out that Mussolini had been dead for some time, Hitler called the question “nasty” and stormed out of the room.

(To make this clear, I’m not saying Trump is Hitler; he’s way too lazy and narcissistic for that, and, to his credit, he much prefers trade wars to the shooting kind. That’s why the date on this is April Fools’ Day. It cannot be denied, however, that the two share some unsavory tactics and personality traits–telling outrageous lies and shifting blame to implausible scapegoats are among them.)

The shape of the official response to the pandemic is becoming increasingly clear. The GOP will have its way: virtually all of the states will open up completely even without a plausible mitigation plan in place in order to avoid clashes with militant right-wing protesters; and Trump and Mitch will withhold support for a new round of stimulus (this time, that’s actually a fair use of the word) unless and until the Democrats cave on some ridiculous GOP priority.

The bottom line is that by “winning,” the GOP will own the pandemic. The reluctance to provide aid to state and local governments will create a big drag on the economy and result in plenty of unnecessary misery. A large portion of the public will continue to avoid crowds; the failure to solve the public health problem will, therefore, thwart the recovery that the GOP so desperately needs in November.

Trump will, of course, blame the Chinese for this.

Readers my age or older probably remember that there was a time during the sixties and early seventies when the right actually embraced gun control. The reason for that was quite simple; our TV screens were filled with images of left-wing groups, particularly African-Americans, brandishing guns and talking openly about violence. That was not a coincidence.

Today, ostentatious gun ownership is effectively a monopoly of the right. We are currently being treated to the spectacle of impromptu right-wing militias attempting to prevent state and local law enforcement officers in a number of jurisdictions from enforcing virus-related restrictions. This activity is likely to get worse before it gets better; it isn’t too difficult to imagine it extending to polling places during the November election.

At some point, the left is going to get tired of being pushed around by right-wing thugs. If we remain on our present course, we are going to see the left arm in retaliation, and we may even start to see political violence on the streets. I really, really hope that doesn’t happen, but as long as Trump is on the scene egging on his “Second Amendment people” and rejecting the legitimacy of any Democratic government, it could.

Last week’s issue of The New Yorker contained an Evan Osnos article about the devolution of Greenwich, Connecticut from a place dominated culturally by modest, public-spirited Yankee capitalists to a bastion of swaggering Trumpism. The article lays out the symptoms at some length, but does not really attempt to explain why it occurred. I will try to do that for you.

It’s not a coincidence that Osnos finds that the shift started to occur in the late sixties and early seventies. It’s a symptom of the libertarian bent of the boomers, which in turn was the product of genuine social and cultural grievances, unprecedented affluence, and the absence of an overwhelming formative crisis such as World War II or the Great Depression that compelled the entire community to pull together. The positive element of the boomer individual freedom agenda was support for the civil rights movement, gay rights, and feminism against perceived oppression from traditionally privileged groups. The darker side was disregard for the interests of the less affluent; except to the extent that they could be realistically viewed as victims of the culture war, they were held to be responsible for their own misfortune, and left to sink or swim on their own.

Modesty and team play were out; unbridled self-expression, preening, and contempt for losers came into vogue.

And so, Joe DiMaggio was replaced as an icon by the trash-talking Muhammad Ali, Reggie Jackson, and Joe Namath, and the Bush family was ultimately trounced by Trump. On the whole, we are the worse for it, I’m afraid.

I’D DIE FOR THE DONALD

At the start of 2020

Life was looking pretty good.

Economy was running hot

As Trump had said it would.

_____________

The virus ruined everything.

Countless thousands dead.

We locked down in quarantine

And Biden’s now ahead.

______________

Twenty million unemployed.

The public’s grumpy now.

We have to bring the good times back.

I think I know just how.

_________________

Our lives are truly meaningless

If the left’s in power.

Flight 93 is in the air.

This is the fateful hour.

__________

Damn the virus, anyway.

The reckoning’s at hand.

I’m going back to bars again.

It’s time to make my stand.

___________

I’d die for the Donald.

You’re damn right I would.

I’m just doing what I can.

As true Americans should.

____________

I’d die for the Donald.

It’s OK with me.

It’s the least that I can do

To keep my country free.

The legal ability of the House to conduct investigations is firmly grounded in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to legislate to the extent “necessary and proper” relative to its enumerated powers. Fact finding is an essential part of legislation. That is the reason the case law on investigations and the separation of powers is tied to the need for legislation.

The textual basis for Trump’s claim of immunity is . . . nowhere in Article II. It simply doesn’t exist. I’m confident there is no basis for it in the debates at the Convention, either. If you’re a right-wing member of the Supreme Court, and you claim to be an originalist, that has to be a source of embarrassment.

Immunity can only be viewed as a judicial gloss, the likes of which have been attacked mercilessly by originalists in the past. As a matter of logic and practice, it does make some sense in limited circumstances. In this case, however, the burdens put on Trump as a result of demands for records that are not actually in his possession are minimal, and there is a reasonable nexus to proposed legislation in the record. The only way for the Court to get around it is to do the kind of examination of the motives of the House that it rejected of the president in the Muslim ban case. That would be a different kind of embarrassment.

These cases aren’t even close. The Court should never have heard them. If the Court ultimately finds for Trump, it will be proof that, no matter what the Chief Justice says, partisan politics rule in our judiciary.

Ross Douthat wonders why we accepted a stalemate with the virus instead of making a commitment to total victory. There’s a one word answer to that; it rhymes with “slump.”

There was undoubtedly an opportunity for Trump to embrace the concept of the “wartime president” and to take firmer measures to neutralize the virus. Handled soberly and energetically, it might well have been a political winner. He didn’t do it, because: the short term economic pain would have been far too great for someone who fixates on the daily movement of the stock market and the polls; and the people running around with assault rifles and complaining about the current version of the quarantine are his base. He wasn’t about to piss them off.

True to form, if not American precedent, Donald Trump didn’t accept the outcome of the November election. First, he filed a blizzard of baseless lawsuits, claiming that his defeat was the result of massive fraud. These went nowhere. He denied the Biden transition team any access to critical information, and ordered his people to destroy records wherever possible in an effort to hamper future investigations. He quietly talked to Barr, key military leaders, and even Putin about a coup, but was rebuffed. Finally, and most destructively, he called on his base to rise up and take power, by force if necessary.

Sensing an opportunity, the endlessly cynical Mitch McConnell told Biden that he would only accept the legitimacy of his incoming government if the new president would agree to shelve his spending plans and respect GOP budgetary priorities. Biden correctly saw this as a bluff, and refused.

On the day of the inauguration, Trump was at Mar-a-Lago, tweeting his brains out. A small number of his followers, armed with assault rifles, attempted to take over city halls and state houses in several red states. It came to nothing, and was a source of immense embarrassment to the GOP leadership for years thereafter.

Biden’s speech called for national reconciliation. It was well received by moderates of both parties. It was clear, however, that the task of reunifying the country would be very difficult.

The GOP convention will mark the end of the evolution of the party into the POT (Party of Trump). For obvious reasons, there will be little discussion of such supposedly immutable Republican principles as free trade, support for liberal democratic allies, and limited government. It is doubtful that any kind of vision of a better future will be on display, because that vision exists at the whim of the man on golf cart, and it changes from day to day, depending on his mood. Why box him in? Just drop the leash and let him run! Wherever he goes, that’s what Republicans are!

Expect a nauseating festival of blame shifting, lib owning, and Trump worship. Still, some questions remain, as follows:

1. Will the party embrace any form of “national conservatism?” That would involve moving away from regressive tax and safety net cuts and towards a more worker-friendly budget and subsidies. It won’t happen; Trump is a true believer in most aspects of Reagan-era economics, and the business community won’t allow it. The menu will still be limited to tax cuts and deregulation at present, although the future is up in the air.
2. Will the party embrace the lockdown protesters, and tell the elderly that their health is a lower priority than economic recovery? My guess is yes, but only in code, given their desperate need for votes from older Americans. It will be up to the Democrats to crack the code and make the message explicit.

Assuming, for purposes of argument, that the Democrats hold an actual in-person convention, how should it be scripted? I would start with the grim reality of today and move gradually to the much brighter future, as follows:

1. Day One: Trump Day! Unrelenting focus on the man’s real history and shortcomings. Key speaker: Elizabeth Warren.
2. Day Two: The pandemic, inequality, America’s lost status in the world, and how the Democrats plan to respond. Key speaker: Bernie Sanders.
3. Day Three: Vision for a new and hopeful tomorrow. Key speaker: VP nominee.
4. Day Four: Why Joe Biden is the man for the time. Key speaker: Biden.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone who knew anything about the man, but “The Last Dance” makes it crystal clear that Michael Jordan stoked his unmatched competitive fire by identifying and even occasionally manufacturing personal slights. He didn’t respect people who backed down to him, but if you didn’t openly accept his status as the ultimate alpha male, he would step on your neck, and enjoy it. Winning at everything was essential to him; losing was worse than death. It probably still is, although I hope not, for the sake of his mental health.

Does this sound at all familiar? The difference is that basketball genuinely is a zero-sum game, but politics isn’t. What worked for MJ and the Bulls is a disaster for the country.