Yes! A substantial majority of Likud voters decided to give up a guaranteed share of power and to force the nation into an unnecessary election that no one wants solely to protect the interests of their indicted leader.
Does that make sense to you? Me, neither, but we don’t belong to a cult. Let’s hope the Israeli voters punish them for their irresponsibility.
They require no introduction, but I’ll give them one, anyway.
The one had a vision of a company that would use the internet to unite the world peacefully, and make him billions along the way. For a while, it seemed to work, and the company was widely praised as a force for positive, liberal change, particularly during the Arab Spring. But then the potential for social media to be used for evil became obvious, governments started to crack down, and the business model failed, except as a generator of enormous profits. Today, it seems inevitable that the company will be regulated as a public utility, broken up, or both, and it is evolving more into an American national tech champion than a pioneer of globalization.
The other was the head of state of a country with oil and nuclear weapons, but an economy roughly the size of Australia’s. A hard, cynical man who believes in nothing but his own indispensability and regaining the lost greatness of his nation, he used unconventional means, including irregular troops and internet trolls, along with some pure butchery, conservative ideology, and clever diplomacy to expand his influence. He stands for both the power of globalization and its ultimate limits.
I give you the men of the decade: Mark Zuckerberg and Vladimir Putin.
There are two iron laws of primary campaigns: every serious candidate is entitled to at least one boomlet; and, notwithstanding the noise and drama, the winner is usually the favorite at the beginning. Today, we are hearing that Sanders is surging. Is that real?
Only to a very limited extent. Yes, Bernie appears to have recovered nicely from his heart attack. He has a core of devoted supporters and plenty of money. In some ways, as I will explain in a future post, he would be a more formidable opponent for Trump than Warren, although she would make a far better president. He’s clearly not going away any time soon.
That said, he’s still way too far left for the mainstream of the Democratic Party, so he’s only going to win if we have a massive recession in the next few months, or if we have a brokered convention. Don’t bet the ranch on either of those occurring.
At the beginning of the decade, the right-wing populist backlash had begun, China was emerging as an economic and military threat, the Middle East was unsettled, Iran was trying to build a bomb, the Russian bear was growling in the near abroad, Europe was looking divided and sclerotic, and the Patriots were a threat to win the Super Bowl. Today . . . well, you get the idea. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
The one thing that has clearly changed is the role of the internet in our lives. Social media are vastly more widespread and influential than they were in 2010. The early dream of a peacefully interconnected world was ruined by hackers, spammers, bots, white supremacists, Russian trolls, perverts, and the like. The dream is starting to look more like a nightmare to the average citizen.
Unfortunately, that, to me, is the story of the decade.
Assume, for purposes of argument, that McConnell and the GOP majority in the Senate go with my Option #1, and refuse to call any witnesses; the decision would, therefore, be made solely on the basis of the record provided by the House. What does that mean for the rationale for acquittal?
It means the credibility of the witnesses in the House proceedings cannot be effectively attacked, and the GOP senators can’t use the favorite talking point of their House counterparts–that the process was fundamentally unfair to Trump–as the basis for their vote. That leaves them with two possible rationales. The first–that there is insufficient testimony from anyone with first hand knowledge of Trump’s statements and motives to support removal–will look absurd to anyone reading about the case 20 years from now, given that the Senate was presented with the opportunity to call several such witnesses and declined. The second is that Trump’s actions, while reprehensible, are not enough to merit impeachment. This line of reasoning will both enrage the president and send a message that coercing a foreign nation to intervene in American elections is not a big deal. That isn’t a message that is going to make Collins or Murkowski feel very comfortable.
For thousands of years, the growing of cotton was a very small scale affair, mostly involving Indian farmers. Technological change and the introduction of capitalism changed all of that. First there was “war capitalism,” driven by the forcible appropriation of land and slavery. Conditions for workers in the mills were horrific, too. Then you had “industrial capitalism,” in which state power was used in a variety of ways to nudge, and sometimes compel, farmers around the world to give up growing other crops and to raise cotton exclusively. The result was widespread misery and famine. The British and American mill workers, for their part, ultimately put themselves out of work by demanding decent working conditions. Today, most cotton and cloth production takes place in impoverished countries, and the march of creative destruction continues unabated.
It is a depressing story, to say the least. I do have to make the following points in defense of capitalism, however: the history of the production of cotton cloth is not typical of capitalism, which did not typically depend on coercion and slavery; and the vast and widespread benefits to consumers are not considered in the book. For the world in its entirety, cheap cotton cloth was a blessing, not a curse, the immense pain it inflicted on its producers notwithstanding.
“Empire of Cotton” is a depressing book, particularly for admirers of capitalism. It can be a bit repetitive, too. Nevertheless, if you have a chance, you should read it, because it has something important to say about the nature of capitalism and globalization.
The book is too complex to summarize in a single post, but the crux of it revolves around the transition from a production model based on the forcible appropriation of land and slavery ( reasonably called “war capitalism” in the book) to what is referred to as “industrial capitalism.” Global cotton production increased dramatically, even without slavery, after the Civil War through the use of state power in the form of infrastructure investments, technical assistance, various kinds of subsidies, the enforcement of contracts on an international basis, and a degree of coercion. The results were typically disastrous for the producers; for example, Indian farmers who were prodded by British authorities to plant cotton exclusively for the ultimate benefit of mill owners and workers in the UK starved by the millions when prices fell, as they inevitably did on occasion.
If misery was a by-product of cotton production all over the world, even without slavery, does that weaken the case for reparations for the descendants of American slaves? No, but it means that supporters of reparations need to be precise. The injury which arguably requires compensation is not simple economic harm, but the denial of basic humanity, which did not occur in established societies like India and Egypt.
Kamala Harris is already out the door. Cory Booker, in all likelihood, will be soon to follow. Michael Bloomberg has plenty of money, but a very limited constituency. Mayor Pete and Klobuchar are the remaining viable Biden replacements. Who would be the best choice?
They have different strengths and weaknesses. Mayor Pete has the ability to raise money, and the novelty of his campaign is attractive to some, but he can sound as technocratic as Mr. Spock, and his lack of relevant experience is a legitimate issue. Klobuchar, on the other hand, has a solid legislative and electoral record, but lacks sizzle. She doesn’t have much money, and her campaign will be dead if she doesn’t somehow win Iowa.
To me, Klobuchar would be both a better nominee and a better president. It’s a moot point, however; neither candidate has any obvious appeal to minority voters, so the likelihood of a Biden replacement victory is very low.
Progressives usually accuse Joe Biden of being “naïve” when he insists that he can work with Republicans. Cynical supporters maintain that Biden knows that the GOP won’t work with him, and that he is simply telling his supporters what they want to hear. Is there a better argument in his favor?
Yes, although you will never hear it from him, because it is a variant of the cynical position. It starts with these premises: (a) the system is currently stacked against any major progressive changes, and no amount of “fighting” can alter that; (b) the country is dangerously divided, and liberal democracy is at risk from the radical right; and (c) time and demographics are on the side of the progressives, but that train won’t arrive for a few years. As a result, what we need is a transitional figure who can purge the system of Trumpism without pushing too hard for divisive progressive reforms over the next four years. After rebuilding unity and trust by feeding the alligators during a single term, Biden can then turn the job over to a younger progressive in 2024, at which time the demographic situation will look more promising than it does today.
If you want fundamental change immediately, this isn’t ideal, but with the current Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and the rules of the Senate, what’s the more plausible alternative to treading water and waiting for the future?
I asked my wife, who is a sucker for anything Christmas, to identify the capital of American Christmas, based on the images she sees on TV. She said it was in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. She’s right; there is even a Christmas card for sale of a Norman Rockwell painting of downtown Stockbridge. I almost bought it this year, but I didn’t.
I grew up in a town in Ohio that looked a lot like Stockbridge, so all of those images of snow, large colonial homes, and happy, affluent white people inevitably resonate with me. Most Americans have never lived in a place like that, however. Why do they relate so strongly to those images?
Unfortunately, the answer is fairly obvious: at an unconscious level, we accept the notion of white suburban America as the real America. The Christmas commercials and the Hallmark movies are telling us what we want to hear. That’s the reactionary position, and we need to resist it.
In Sunday’s NYT column, Ross Douthat uses Christmas as a jumping-off point to argue that: (a) Christianity is more pervasive in our lives, and our values, then we realize; and (b) you can’t ultimately accept Christian ethics without embracing its dogmas and metaphysics. Is he right?
On (a), yes; it’s an argument I’ve made many times before. You need to be leery of the notion that Christianity, with its emphasis on the value of each human life, is a buffer against totalitarianism, however; after all, Orthodox Russia and Protestant/Catholic Germany both turned into totalitarian states. In addition, while religious ideas of equality inspired the Abolitionists and the Civil Rights Movement, the conservative opponents of both were committed Christians, too. Finally, of course, there is the overwhelming evangelical support for Trump. Being a Christian does not, by itself, put you on the right side of history, or even any debate about equality.
On (b), no, partly because different Christian groupings have wildly different ideas about both dogma and metaphysics. Are we talking about the side which believes in an infallible pope, transubstantiation, and the power of saints, or the side that doesn’t? There is no single orthodox position accepted by both.
Christmas is a perfect example of how ideas can become unmoored from their origins and still work. For most people, Christmas has lost its religious significance; it is now a day, like Chinese New Year, to escape the tyranny of commonplace concerns and to reconnect with family and the past. It works just fine that way. It’s still going strong, and will for the foreseeable future.
Merry Christmas!
I heard a joke on the radio to the effect that a Democratic fundraiser in a wine cave is perfectly appropriate, because Democrats are best known for whining and caving. Is that true?
In a way, yes. The GOP is a swaggering daddy party; the Democrats, on the other hand, are a predominantly female party that prefers making deals and getting things done to bellowing and needlessly dividing the country. As a result, Biden and Mayor Pete are prospering with a message of unifying the country; you wouldn’t see anyone with that message running in a GOP primary, even before Trump.
Democrats compromise when it is necessary to keep the country going. That makes them the adult party as well as the mommy party. There is no reason to apologize for that; like every family, every country needs adults somewhere.
Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren are profoundly different people and politicians, but they use similar language to describe barriers to the popular will that are baked into our system. Trump loves to talk about the “deep state,” the “rigged system,” and “draining the swamp,” while Warren’s new overriding campaign theme is “corruption.” Are they right, and are they talking about the same thing?
Hardly.
If you deconstruct Trump’s thought patterns (a frightening task, to be sure), it runs something like this:
1. I was elected by a majority of real Americans;
2. The will of the people should be respected in a democracy; therefore
3. Anything I do as the representative of the people is sacrosanct, and any barriers to their will should be eliminated.
In the real world, of course, what he means by this is that people who obey the law and longstanding liberal democratic norms are getting in his way, and need to go. That’s a description of a banana republic, not the United States of America.
For her part, Warren’s real concern is that the wealthy have too much access to power in this country. She is disguising an attack on the First Amendment rights of wealthy people by illogically associating them with Trump’s innumerable misdeeds in office. Trump’s corruption is sui generis; it ought to be treated that way.
If you want to see the future of the GOP, check out a state in which the Democrats have minimal influence in government, so alliances among the factions are unnecessary. Try Texas, for example.
The important political battles in Texas pit pro-business “moderates” (in my terminology, PBPs) against social conservatives (Reactionaries). The PBP faction wants to improve education and infrastructure to help the state’s economy; the Reactionaries want bathroom bills and right-wing high school textbooks. The PBPs view the Reactionary agenda as being a distraction at best and a detriment to the state’s business-friendly reputation at worst. After a few years in which the PBPs were barely hanging on, the two factions appear to have reached some sort of an equilibrium, but the battle will continue.
You will see the same phenomenon at the national level in the coming years. The emerging question is whether Trump’s successor as leader of the GOP will be a “national conservative” with a reactionary, interventionist, pro-worker economic agenda. My guess is that the WSJ and the other PBP enforcers still have enough clout in the party to prevent that from happening in the foreseeable future, but the issue is definitely up for debate, as evidenced by Trump’s acceptance of union-supported changes to his USMCA over the objections of business interests.
(It’s 5:00 on December 24. Bob Cratchit is working in his cubicle at Scrooge, LLC when the boss, in “managing by walking around” mode, comes by.)
BC: Mr. Scrooge, sir.
S: What is it (looks for name on the cubicle) . . . Cratchit?
BC: Can I please have tomorrow off, sir?
S: Why?
BC: Why, it’s Christmas, sir.
S: Not in China, it isn’t. How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give people like you time off?
BC: But Trump is protecting you from the Chinese with his tariffs, isn’t he?
S: His tariffs don’t help, and the uncertainty is killing me. I have no idea what he’ll do on a day-to-day basis. It makes it impossible to run my business.
BC: Wow, you’ve really soured on him in the last year. It sounds like you support impeachment.
S: Not a chance! He may be erratic, egotistical, and out of control, but at least he’s on my side. If he doesn’t win next year, we could get Sanders or Warren, and then I’d be really screwed. You, too. You could be out of a job.
BC: At least Warren and Sanders support Medicare-for-all. I could really use that. I have a special needs child, you know.
(Scrooge peers into the cubicle again and sees a photo of Tiny Tim)
S: Is that him?
BC: Yes, sir.
(Scrooge hobbles around the office with an exaggerated limp)
BC: He’s in really bad shape, sir. Why are you making fun of him?
S: I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.
BC: You sound just like Trump.
S: On his more lucid days, he makes me proud to be an American again. I just wish he would have a few more of them and stop the trade war.
BC: But what about Christmas?
S: You’ll probably complain to some stupid federal agency that Trump hasn’t abolished yet if I don’t give you a day off, so you can stay home. But keep your phone on—I will send you some spreadsheets to analyze.
(He thinks for a minute)
S: Hey, there’s an idea! You could be an independent contractor . . . .