Cromwell

Photos of Mao and Zhou can be found in lots of Chinese shops, taxis, and, presumably, homes. Regardless of appearances, they don’t really suggest that the owners want to relive the Cultural Revolution; they are a sort of safe space to make a mild comment on inequality and corruption.

But could a Maoist left populism actually make a comeback in today’s China? The story of Bo Xilai is instructive on this point.

Bo was the boss of Chongqing. Although very corrupt himself, he made a national reputation for himself as a swaggering crime fighter and enemy of big business. He also spent lots of public money in visible ways and took the credit for it. He was on the verge of making it into the Politburo when the leadership, aided by some very strange events in Chongqing, started to see him (from their perspective, correctly) as a menace and crushed him.

There clearly is an audience for left-wing populism in China. A new leader with some of Bo’s swagger and far more discretion would have some chance of overcoming the CCP’s skepticism and winning power.

In a post written shortly before the inauguration, I posed the following questions about the Trump presidency (these are paraphrases):

1. Which of the three scenarios for the economy that I envisioned (“Funhouse Reagan,” “Reverse Robin Hood,” and “Trade Warrior”) would predominate?
2. Would Trump’s foreign policy be completely unconventional, or just blustery standard GOP fare?
3. How much damage would he do to the Constitution?

After three long years, we have definitive answers to the questions:

1. The huge regressive tax cut, with no serious attempt at spending restraint, was the predicted “Funhouse Reagan.” His mildly annoying periodic attempts to cut welfare programs have not amounted to much in the big picture. “Trade Warrior” has been a drag on manufacturing and investment, but not enough to make much of a difference in employment or wages. The one mistake I made here was in concluding that the combination of “Funhouse Reagan” and “Trade Warrior” would result in higher interest rates and a recession. That nearly came to pass, but the Fed pulled back; it is now clear that our economy is hooked on low interest rates for the foreseeable future, with possibly dire results during the next recession.
2. Trump’s enthusiasm, as opposed to mere tolerance, for dictators, his consistent opposition to free trade, and his bashing of traditional allies are all outside of the GOP mainstream. You would have to say that his foreign policy has been predominantly unconventional.
3. On the constitutional front, Trump has been a mixed bag. In spite of his many complaints about defamation and the “enemies of the people,” he hasn’t done anything (yet) to curtail our First Amendment rights. By and large, he has also complied with court orders. On the other hand, he is destroying the public’s faith in our institutions with his complaints about the judiciary and the “deep state,” inviting foreign intervention in our elections, openly using his position to enrich himself, and defying legitimate efforts at congressional oversight on a regular basis. That is damaging the system to a degree that even I didn’t envision in January, 2017.

It’s not a very pretty record, and if he wins a second term, it is likely to be worse than the first.

Historically, China has been a mostly static, agrarian nation in which the collective took precedence over the individual. It was, therefore, no great feat for Mao and the Communists to put rigorous social controls in place after 1949; they already existed in embryo.

Today’s China is a very different place–largely urban, and extremely dynamic. How do you maintain the social controls the Communist Party thinks are essential to a stable society in areas where people don’t even know their neighbors?

Through technology, apparently. That’s the reason for the cameras and the development of AI. There will be problems with the system; for one thing, the vast amount of raw data may overwhelm the reviewers, no matter how sophisticated their computers are. In the long run, however, it could work, and that’s a pretty scary prospect for people who cherish both privacy and personal freedom.

If you ask Elizabeth Warren how she plans to get her wealth tax past Mitch McConnell and the Senate, she will say that the tax polls well even with Republicans, so Mitch will have no choice but to acquiesce. Is that realistic?

No, because it views the tax in isolation, not the real world. The GOP is bound to fight the tax because its wealthy donors will demand it. They will make the case to their less affluent voters by saying that the money is being raised for programs that will primarily benefit lazy minorities who want cuts in line. And that, my friends, will be that.

Two assassinations. Burning cities. Campus takeovers. Anti-war demonstrations. Chicago. Yes, it seemed like the country was coming apart in 1968. We’re about as divided as we were then–could it happen again?

Yes and no. The violence of 1968 came mostly from members of the left who had (not without reason) lost faith in the system. Today, progressive frustration hasn’t reached that level, although the almost certain failures of a President Warren or Sanders might change that. No, today the real danger to the system comes from the right, which views demography as destiny and doesn’t like what it sees. The right has guns and some willingness to use them.

If Trump loses, therefore, there is some chance of 1968 in reverse. Buckle up–either way, life is going to be very interesting in November, and I don’t mean that in a positive way.

He grew up with a chip on his shoulder. He was determined to make himself the center of attention, and did he ever! He created a cult of personality that is still being felt today.

He hated intellectuals. He communicated directly with the masses in pungent language they could understand, and they responded.

He was a womanizer. His many relationships with women did him no credit.

He was a flexible tactician. He changed positions on a dime, and expected his country to follow him without question.

More than anything else, he was a disrupter. He loved drama, and forcing the pace of change on a whim. Bureaucrats and genuine conservatives were his enemies. He bashed them unmercifully.

Is it Donald Trump or Mao? You decide.

I don’t have access to his impeachment brief, but based on news accounts, here is at least a partial list of his defenses, and my responses:

1. “HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS” REQUIRES A VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE: Based on the debates at the Constitutional Convention, approved allegations in previous impeachments, and common sense, this simply isn’t true. Plenty of actions that would precede a presidential coup would not be violations of criminal statutes; would anyone seriously contend that, say, ordering the AG to prosecute political opponents for frivolous reasons or replacing military leaders with friendly political hacks wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment? In any event, the GAO has concluded that the withholding of funds was, in fact, a violation of law.

2. THE HOUSE PROCESS WAS RIGGED AND INCOMPLETE: The House process was consistent with its role as a grand jury, which is consistent with prevailing legal practices and the literal requirements of the Constitution. If you have a problem with the record created by the House, call witnesses and have a real trial before the Senate.

3. THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD THE FUNDS; HIS INTENT DOESN’T MATTER: Of course it matters. It matters in virtually every criminal statute. Withholding funds for legitimate public purposes is not the same as trying to coerce a foreign government to intervene in your favor in an election.

4. THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTITLED TO PROHIBIT THE DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, SO ARTICLE II MUST FAIL: Trump’s blanket direction to refuse to cooperate with the impeachment process went way beyond any legitimate claim of privilege, because the information requested was not a confidential communication involving him.

5. THE FUNDS WERE ULTIMATELY RELEASED, SO NO HARM, NO FOUL: Only because his scheme to coerce Ukraine for his own benefit became public knowledge. Being an inept extortionist isn’t grounds for acquittal.

6. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TYING TRUMP TO THE WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS OR THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN: The record overwhelmingly says otherwise. Again, if the issue is the lack of testimony from Giuliani, Bolton, Mulvaney, or anyone else who was in direct contact with Trump, call them as witnesses and see what happens.

7. THE PRESIDENT WAS GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE: Sure. That’s why he used his personal attorney instead of regular government channels to pursue the matter, only showed an interest in the Bidens and the 2016 election, and indicated that the point was to announce an investigation, not to actually do one.

Is Trump a white supremacist? I have consistently maintained that his racism is more the product of politics and opportunism than anything else. There is a chain of evidence, however, which suggests otherwise. It’s a debatable point.

Here is what I consider to be beyond dispute, however:

1. His base consists largely of people who consider themselves to be the victims, not the beneficiaries, of racism.
2. Anyone who thinks that we need to keep brown and black people out because they carry with them a culture that is incompatible with ours is a white supremacist, whether he views himself that way or not.
3. Any white person who believes he is the true victim of a system that gives members of other races “cuts in line” is either remarkably unobservant or just plain stupid.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter if Trump is actually a white supremacist or not, because he acts like one, and he relies on support from them. What more do you need?

Andrew Yang says this time really is different; robots and AI are going to destroy millions of good jobs and replace them with, well, mass unemployment. Paul Krugman, in response, argues that the evidence shows that productivity gains arising from technological change are actually slowing, and that the robot problem is overblown. Who’s right?

Krugman’s evidence is from the present and the recent past, while Yang is making predictions about the future. History suggests that Krugman is right, but the honest answer is that no one really knows. I wouldn’t want to make policy on such limited information.

What I will say is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that the glory days of the fifties and the sixties for the American economy for which both the right and the left yearn were based on a set of facts that can’t be duplicated in a very different world. The only way I can imagine America dominating the world economy the way we did in the golden age is with some sort of new product or service that creates millions of high paying jobs for Americans of average intelligence and education. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that such an innovation is possible, how long would our dominance last? Given the current mobility of capital and ideas and our inability to protect intellectual property outside of our borders, not very, and the cycle would begin all over again. That is not the precise problem that Yang has identified, but the two are related.

What, in turn, does that mean for our society? Even though Yang’s concerns about the impacts of technology may be misplaced, and the UBI might well not work, he has indirectly identified a very real issue that requires a solution. We need a more effective welfare state to protect the interests of millions of Americans who simply don’t have the ability to thrive in an increasingly knowledge-based, and perpetually changing, global economy.

Should we emulate the Chinese in order to beat them on tech issues? Let’s ask the factions:

1. CLs: Interfering with the free market is always counterproductive. The Chinese can’t possibly beat us with subsidies and regulations; in fact, their system is bound to implode any day now. Just cut taxes and regulations and the innovations you want will follow as the night the day.
2. PBPs: We have big issues with Trump’s tariffs, because they create an unstable investment climate and cost us money, but subsidizing critical industries would work for us just fine.
3. CDs: This isn’t really our thing, man. Whatever works is fine with us.
4. Reactionaries: The Chinese have been ripping us off and stealing our jobs for years. Their political system scares the crap out of us, too. Do whatever it takes to keep America great!

My conclusion: The CLs don’t carry much weight in the GOP, let alone the electorate as a whole. It’s going to happen, particularly since the Democrats aren’t going to object. It’s just a matter of time.

The Iranian government has a richly-deserved reputation for lying, most notably about its nuclear program. One would, therefore, have expected it to bellow about fake news and continue to lie about the demise of the Ukrainian plane even in the face of all of the evidence. For domestic purposes, it might even have worked. After an inept initial coverup, however, the government came clean, at some cost to itself. Why?

The obvious reason is that the evidence was mounting, and that the world had already made up its mind. The less obvious reason is that, unlike other American presidents, Trump is already known around the world as a bellicose, capricious liar; that presents some opportunities for the Iranians, who desperately need diplomatic support from the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese. Could appearing more truthful and reasonable than the Americans help them in the long run?

Quite possibly, yes. Trump and Pompeo are already complaining about the lack of European support for America against Iran. If they push too hard, the split could boomerang into something much worse.

The Chinese approach to promoting tech industries includes openly protectionist taxes and regulations, subsidies, and outright theft of intellectual property. Before you get too indignant about that, or attribute it to obnoxious socialist mercantilism, remember that the Europeans did it to the Chinese, and each other, centuries ago. It’s what the technological have nots do to the haves, regardless of ideology.

That said, given the nature of the Chinese regime and the uncertainty about its ultimate objectives, it would be dangerous not to view its efforts to grow indigenous tech industries as a threat to our national security, let alone our economy. How should we respond? Should we create a similar cocktail of tariffs, regulations, and subsidies? Or should we leave it to the free market?

In my opinion, the correct answer is as follows:

1. The free market is good at identifying and satisfying consumer desires that the consumer doesn’t even know he has–think of the iPhone or Facebook. That kind of imagination is not an attribute of a socialist system. In that respect, we are better off not emulating the Chinese.

2. In situations where an overriding public objective is easily identified, and the market simply won’t get it done, however, the government has to step in. The space program is the obvious example here.

3. If you’re looking for a modern equivalent to the space program, I would suggest energy storage. I know that the private sector is working on it, but I’m not sure that its efforts are sufficient, given the obvious importance of the matter. Increased government involvement in that sector would make perfect sense.

4. There are probably other examples. The bottom line is that government intervention is necessary in some instances, but we need to apply that approach sparingly, and to avoid being more Chinese than China. If we try that, our failure is inevitable. Flexibility and pragmatism are the key to success in this area, not ideology.

The Constitution doesn’t tell us very much about how the impeachment process is supposed to work. Our legal system gives us two plausible models for it:

1. GRAND JURY/TRIAL: The House serves as a sort of grand jury and creates the indictment; the Senate handles the trial. Following this model, the president has few rights in the House, and live witnesses are necessary in the Senate.

2. TRIAL COURT/APPELLATE COURT: The House actually holds a trial with live witnesses, participation by the president’s counsel, and cross-examination. After the House creates a complete record, the Senate reviews it and makes its own legal conclusions. No witnesses are necessary in the Senate process.

The problem with the current process is that it is neither of the above. The reason for that, in a nutshell, is that the House leadership did not, and could not, know how the Senate trial would be run. As a result, what we are likely to have is a mixed process: grand jury/appellate court. Politically, that may fly, but legally and logically, it makes no sense whatsoever.

In today’s world, I guess that figures.

David Brooks begins Friday’s NYT column by arguing that Bernie Sanders can’t win a general election, because “Flyover Man” is more motivated by the culture wars than by inequality. I agree; it’s the fatal flaw in the Sanders campaign.

But Brooks goes several steps beyond that to say that American capitalism essentially gives workers what they deserve, because the evidence shows that wage increases are tightly tied to productivity. From that premise, Brooks argues that the system isn’t broken, and that public policy should be focused on increasing productivity, particularly by improving education.

There is a lot there to comment on, including the following:

1. I think that Brooks is cherry-picking his statistics. There is plenty of evidence that wage increases have not, in fact, mirrored productivity improvements since the GOP embraced tax cuts and deregulation in 1980. Most of the evidence that they have relies on less meaningful timeframes.

2. I can’t help pointing out that his beloved GOP is slashing education budgets all over the country. If improving education is the way to solve the problem, he needs to find a different vehicle to do it.

3. As several commentators have pointed out, the fact that wages for lower-skilled jobs have increased at a higher rate in recent years is due, not to the operation of the market, but to minimum wage increases that Brooks’ GOP always oppose.

4. It is practically impossible to measure productivity in many service jobs. Are teachers and health care workers more or less productive than they were 20 years ago? Who can tell? Their wages clearly aren’t dictated by productivity.

5. There is no doubt that our economy is more knowledge-based than it was 20 years ago, and that inequality has increased as a result. The real question is, what is the appropriate public response? The GOP reaction is to cut taxes for wealthy investors and services for everyone else, which, on its face, only makes things worse.

6. If you have an economy that creates high-paying jobs for a handful of well-educated people and low-paying jobs for everyone else, is improving education the answer? First of all, even assuming that it is, it will be a very slow process. Second, it isn’t clear to me that you can make major structural changes to the economy by improving skills across the board. Would a health care worker with a graduate degree be a vastly more productive, and therefore better paid employee, than one without a degree? If the health care worker with the degree decided to find a better paying job in another field, who would replace her, and how much would she get paid?

The bottom line is that you can’t solve structural problems with your economy simply by improving the quality of the workforce. In the short run, the solution to rising inequality is an increased degree of wealth redistribution. In the longer run, we need to find a way to create better jobs for more Americans which don’t require coal miners to become code writers. That is an issue the candidates for president should be addressing, but aren’t.

In an atypical foray into identity politics, the Sanders campaign apparently argued to progressives that Warren can’t expand her base beyond highly educated women who will vote for Democrats in any event. Sanders then sort of, but not exactly, walked it back. Was he right?

Yes. Neither candidate has a plausible path to the “revolution,” but Sanders would have the better chance, as he has more flexibility on cultural issues and more ability to appeal to white male workers than the female Professor Kingsfield. That’s a big part of the reason that he is winning in the progressive lane, even though it is obvious that Warren would be a more effective president.