Cromwell

Jeremy Corbyn’s plan for the next few months runs something like this:

1. Boris is forced to either defy the law or ask for an extension.
2. If he defies the law and Brexit occurs on October 31, chaos ensues.
3. If he asks for the extension, his base, including the Brexit Party, turns against him.
4. The Tories have to excuse a serious failure one way or the other, and Labour wins the election.

The reality is much more likely to look like this:

1. Boris defies the law, and chaos ensues.
2. With a no-deal Brexit now an accomplished fact, the Brexit Party is no factor in the subsequent election; its voters return to the Conservatives.
3. Millions of Remain voters within Labour rightly blame Corbyn for his role in creating the mess and vote for the Liberal Democrats.
4. Some Conservatives also vote for the Liberal Democrats. None vote for Labour, since Corbyn is universally distrusted on the right.
5. There are two possible outcomes, depending on the degree of tactical voting on the left: either a Conservative victory; or a patchwork coalition with the Liberal Democrats at its head.
6. Labour is no longer the leading party on the left, and Corbyn is the reason why.

Take a bow, Jeremy. Theresa May was right–she knew when her time was up, but you didn’t, and look at the result!

Elizabeth Warren now has a Social Security plan to throw on top of the pile. The gist of it is that the finances of Social Security will be shored up, and benefits will be increased, with the proceeds from a new tax on capital gains, and a change to the current cap to apply FICA to wages over $250,000.

This is a good plan, for the following reasons:

1. It is politically shrewd, because it gives Warren a talking point with elderly voters that no one, including Trump, has a response to as of now;
2. It is sound policy to address the Social Security deficit now, rather than later; and
3. The FICA cap doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and the capital gains tax is a welcome move towards making all of society, and not just employers and employees, financially responsible for the welfare state.

So why only two cheers? Because the plan creates a doughnut hole between the current cap figure (around $130,000, I believe) and $250,000. That can only be interpreted as a failure of nerve in order to avoid what has historically (and dubiously) been viewed as a middle-class tax increase. Warren is already proposing to increase taxes on those people in order to fund Medicare-for-All, even though she’s doing her best not to admit it; it is time to come clean on that point.

I always thought George W. Bush was a political unicorn. On the one hand, as the son of a president with strong ties to the establishment, he was the ultimate insider. On the other hand, he always made a display of his contempt for that same establishment, most notably through his embrace of evangelical religion, and the reactionaries bought it. He had the support of all four factions of the GOP after his election in 2000. It was a magic act, and a tough one to follow.

Remarkably, Donald Trump has almost matched him. On the one hand, the PBPs and the CLs saw him as a savvy businessman who would cut taxes and regulations; his overheated Twitter account could be overlooked for the greater good of wealth pursuit. On the other hand, he constantly reminded everyone that his heart was genuinely with “real Americans,” which meant reactionaries. They consequently chose to disregard his innumerable personal failings, obscene wealth, and ties to New York City, and are his strongest supporters today. Only the CDs, to whom he offered nothing, abandoned him, and by now, they are a tiny minority within the GOP. They only matter in a tight race.

So how did this happen? There are a lot of reasons, and I’ve written about them before, but one of them was the abject failure of the Bush 43 administration in both foreign and domestic affairs. The GOP establishment was totally discredited, the CDs were blamed, and the party moved on, with the Reactionary/PBP quid pro quo still in place, although somewhat threatened by the rise of “national conservatism.”

The decision of the UK’s Supreme Court to invalidate BoJo’s move to prorogue Parliament is a serious slap in the face for the PM. It does not, however, change the dynamics of the situation, and it isn’t obvious, at this point, what Parliament has to discuss. The October 31 EU deadline is still in place, the bogus negotiations with the EU are continuing, the act requiring BoJo to ask for an extension is law, and the issue now is whether he will comply with the law or ignore it and illegally impose a no-deal Brexit, with all of the chaos that will inevitably result.

Given his Trumpian tendencies, I’m betting on the latter, and given the issues with Corbyn and Labour, BoJo will probably win the ensuing election, anyway.

A TV critic for the NYT has apparently written a book in which he argues that Trump is best understood as a persona in a TV drama. Is he right?

Largely yes, but not completely. What binds Trump to his base is his anger at their common enemies in the establishment. That has nothing to do with “The Apprentice.”

The right is fueled by anger because reactionary white Christian men see themselves as the proper rulers of America, but the losers of the culture wars, and the victims of a system which gives immigrants and minorities cuts in line at their expense. You may fairly ask why they relate so strongly to a billionaire developer and casino owner from New York with multiple marriages and no understanding of Christianity. All I can say is that Trump only sounds authentic when he’s angry, and that the shared sense of grievance probably comes from a belief that the Manhattan social establishment laughed at him and his father.

Whatever the reason, that anger is very corrosive, and it is starting to damage our institutions; the right clearly attaches more importance to its values than to the workings of our liberal democratic system. If you really want something to worry about, consider the likely response from the reactionaries if Trump loses in 2020. No matter how lopsided the outcome may be, the reactionaries are going to view the new Democratic administration as illegitimate, and things are going to get really ugly.

What would a perfect Democratic candidate for president look like? Here are the obvious criteria:

1. IT WOULD BE A MAN: There are plenty of male swing voters, and some women, who simply won’t vote for a woman for president. That may not be fair, and it isn’t impossible for the right woman to win, but we’re trying to appeal to the maximum number of people in this hypothetical exercise. Sorry.
2. HE WOULD BE YOUNG: The Democrats traditionally have done better with fresh faces, and they need someone to appeal to millennials.
3. HE WOULD BE CHARISMATIC: Think Obama, JFK, and Clinton here. The Democrats want a savior, not a businessman.
4. HE WOULD COME FROM A RED OR PURPLE STATE: The better to appeal to swing voters.
5. HE WOULD BE A MODERATE: Extreme lefties turn off those swing voters who are motivated primarily by ideology.

The list leads you to two conclusions:

1. It’s deeply unfortunate that Beto isn’t a more plausible candidate. He meets all of the standards.
2. Warren fails every single one of them. That illustrates the risk the Democrats are running if they nominate her next year. Even Bernie at least meets the man test; from a purely identity perspective, he’s a more plausible winner than Warren, although he would make a far worse president.

Assume, as I do, that the next Israeli government is headed by someone other than Netanyahu. What will that mean for U.S.-Israeli relations?

Bibi has tied Israel’s interests to those of the GOP, and Trump in particular, to an unprecedented degree. The new government will have every incentive to reverse that, because: (a) it has to be clear now that Trump can’t be trusted to follow the company line on war with Iran; (b) Trump may very well not be re-elected; and (c) the American left is becoming increasingly pro-Palestinian as a result of Netanyahu’s clear contempt for it. That represents a grave danger for Israel in the future.

Expect the new government to reverse course and attempt to work with the American political system on a bipartisan basis. The fact that it will not be beholden to the ultra-Orthodox for votes will definitely help. The real question is whether it is already too late. I suspect it is, but only time will tell.

There is, of course, a robust debate as to the meaning of the term “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” To me, it connotes an action or series of actions that endangers the proper functioning of the legal or political system.

After the release of the Mueller Report, I concluded that Trump’s actions to obstruct justice did not meet the standard, as there was no underlying crime, and the investigation was ultimately permitted to reach its proper end. I would further argue that the Stormy Daniels hush money case does not meet the standard, simply because Trump was not in office at the time of the events. While we do not know exactly what Trump did with Ukraine, however, it seems increasingly likely that he was tailoring the foreign policy of the United States solely in his own political interests. In my opinion, that does, in fact, meet the legal requirement for impeachment, even though it is highly unlikely to occur.

While you’re contemplating that, spare a moment for the poor residents of Ukraine. They have been forced to choose between the American incumbent and his potential successor. My guess is that the Ukrainian government will just stall for time, and say nothing to offend anyone.

(It’s October, 2020. Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump are on the debate stage with a moderator. They begin.)

M: Our first question is for Senator Warren. What do you propose to do about increasing inequality in America?

W: Yes, increasing inequality is a great problem in America, and President Trump has done nothing but make it worse with his tax cut. He stuffed his cabinet with billionaires and tried to take health insurance and a variety of federal benefits away from poor people. I have lots and lots of great plans to save the country. I’ll fight for the struggling working people of America, 24/7.

M: President Trump.

T: You know what the real problem with inequality is in this country? It’s not about money. It’s with overeducated Harvard people talking down to real Americans and telling them what to do. America is sick of that. That’s why I’ll win in November.

M: The next question is for President Trump. What’s your plan to deal with climate change?

T: Climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese and American socialists who want to take away jobs from real American workers. They even want to take away your car and your hamburgers with their idiotic Green New Deal! I alone can stop this; that’s why you need to vote for me.

M: Senator Warren?

W: That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Climate change is an existential problem for all mankind. We need to try to stop it immediately. I’ll fight for the Green New Deal, and it will happen.

M: What do you mean by “fighting for the Green New Deal?” How would you get it past Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate?

W: I’ll fight and fight. I fight all the time. I never stop fighting. I’ll go to Kentucky and fight. I’ll make videos on YouTube and speeches on network TV. Average people will respond and put pressure on Mitch to support me. Fighting is about persistence. Even President Obama didn’t really understand that.

M: Another question for Senator Warren. President Trump is sometimes accused of being a racist. Do you think he’s a racist?

W: Of course he is. From his legal problems with discrimination in housing, to the birther controversy, to the Mexican rapists, to the good people supporting the radical right in Charlottesville, he has always done everything he could to denigrate people of color. My administration will put an end to it. I have a plan for that.

M: President Trump.

T: Whatever you say, Pocahontas. (He pretends to shoot her with a bow and arrow)

M: Senator Warren, your response?

W: See what I mean? All he knows how to do is to divide America. That has to stop. It’s killing our country.

M: President Trump.

T: I’m the least racist person in the world. You’re the racist! You’re the racist! You hate real white Americans! You want to make them write checks to black people because of slavery! Vote for me to keep that from happening!

M: I guess that’s a response of sorts. President Trump, you are often accused of being a corrupt authoritarian. What do you say to that?

T: I drained the swamp of all of those elitist liberals who wanted to boss real Americans around. We’re not doing what’s politically correct any more. If that’s corruption, we need more of it. I need four more years to finish the job.

W: The record is obvious to everyone. He’s destroying this country bit by bit, and making sure he gets paid for it. There won’t be anything left of liberal democracy in America if he gets re-elected next month. Everyone needs to understand that.

T: Yeah, I’m getting rid of “liberal” democracy, all right. My base loves me for it. They’re what America is all about–not political correctness and cuts in line for lazy minorities and illegal immigrants.

M: Final statements, starting with Senator Warren.

W: Just because we’re not engaged in any large scale wars, and unemployment is less than four percent, doesn’t mean the country, and even the entire planet, will survive four more years of this. We’re in an emergency. Vote for me to resolve it.

T: America, do you really want to listen to this old biddy professor lecture you for the next four years? It will be worse than having your mother-in-law in your ear every day. I alone can save you from that fate. Believe me. Believe me.

When it was over, all of the pundits declared Warren the winner, but Trump won the election, because Warren couldn’t overcome her problems with identity politics and swing voters.

Bernie Sanders is right about one thing; Medicare-for-All isn’t some loony leftist raving he stole from “The Communist Manifesto.” While the Sanders plan is both more expansive and expensive than any other single-payer system with which I am familiar, the concept of single-payer is more mainstream, on a worldwide basis, than our current system. If you were designing a system from scratch, it is the model you would probably adopt. The debate over it among Democrats is consequently purely tactical and practical.

The state of that debate, at this point, is rather disheartening. Proponents of the more modest public option have framed the issue as one of consumer choice, because depriving people of choices doesn’t poll well. Sanders and Warren have responded by arguing that no one actually loves his insurance company. That is both accurate and beside the point.

As I’ve noted before, the real issue with the Sanders plan is risk aversion, both for the Democratic Party and the electorate. The party knows that sweeping health care reform has been a big vote loser in 1994, 2010, and 2018, that single-payer will be resisted ferociously by a coalition of providers, insurance companies, and right-wingers, and that eliminating private insurance polls poorly. The electorate is concerned that the new system would be worse than the existing one, either as a result of human error, excessive cost, provider resistance, or GOP sabotage. That fear is both real and perfectly reasonable.

Sanders and Warren have the burden of somehow showing that the benefits of Medicare-for-All are worth the risks described above. Until we have a discussion which actually revolves around that issue, and not whether people love their existing insurance, no one is going to be persuaded by anything that is said during the debates.

The Piketty book is often compared to “Das Kapital,” but that isn’t really accurate. Piketty doesn’t believe in anything as woolly and mystical as dialectical materialism. He doesn’t say that mankind is headed for a classless nirvana. He simply generates data which indicate that, under normal conditions, the rate of return on the investments typically held by the wealthy has exceeded the percentage increase in GDP in Western industrial nations. As a result, barring significant policy changes or disasters (wars, depressions, etc.), the trend will be for the affluent to possess an ever-increasing percentage of national wealth.

You could call it something like the iron law of oligarchy, but, as noted above, it can be reversed. Why do I bring this up? Because Bernie Sanders represents Marx in this debate, and Elizabeth Warren stands with Piketty. At some point in time during the campaign, you have to think there will be at least a bit of a debate between the two of them on this point.

If it happens, expect Warren to win it in a landslide–partly because she is the more intelligent of the two candidates, but partly because her position is much easier to defend.

Picture yourself as a pro-democracy protester in Hong Kong. The government has withdrawn the extradition bill. Should you keep demonstrating, or declare victory and go home?

It’s a tough decision. On the one hand, you’re tired, you’re afraid you could wind up in some dreadful black jail on the mainland, and you’re concerned about the level of violence that typically accompanies the protests. On the other hand, you know the ultimate stakes are much higher than the extradition bill, that battle isn’t remotely over, and it will be difficult to coax so many people out on the street at a later date without a serious provocation from the government, which undoubtedly has time on its side.

All I can say is, I’m glad I don’t have to make that choice. It’s the land of no good options.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren know that Barack Obama is admired by the vast majority of Democrats, and that attacking him would be electoral suicide, so they don’t. Their surrogates, however, have no such qualms. And so, we have a column in today’s NYT which accuses Obama of being a “neo-liberal” who blew a great opportunity to remake the American economic and political systems. At least it didn’t call him an Uncle Tom; the author is probably leaving that for Ta-Nehisi Coates.

There are three major errors in the column:

1. OBAMA DIDN’T RUN TO BRING US THE “REVOLUTION”: He has been accurately described as a liberal Republican from the 1960’s or the early 1970’s. There was nothing in his campaign which suggested he was trying to reshape our political and economic system any more than Hillary Clinton was.
2. OBAMA HAD TO PRIORITIZE ECONOMIC RECOVERY OVER DEALING WITH INEQUALITY: Bashing bankers and businessmen was not exactly a great way to rebuild confidence in a tottering system during a crisis. If he had focused more on helping the little guy than on keeping the country afloat, the poor would have wound up with a larger slice of a much smaller pie, which would not have improved their lot at all.
3. HE DID EVERYTHING THAT WAS POLITICALLY FEASIBLE: Joe Lieberman was willing to tank Obamacare over the public option. Do you really think he was going to vote for a “revolution?”

I’m happy to say I was wrong about the outcome of yesterday’s election (so shoot me!) Lieberman played his cards better than Bibi, and was the big winner. I suspect Bibi fatigue probably played a part, too. In any event, the most likely coalition at this point would be Lieberman’s party, Blue and White, and Likud without Bibi as PM (oh, darn!)

If my latest prediction is right, the new government will be badly split on the Palestinian issue, and will probably aim to do as little as possible, which, in all likelihood, would suit the majority of Israeli voters just fine. I don’t know if it will be more or less hawkish on Iran. I am certain, however, that its relationship with Trump will be quite different than what we have seen in the last three years.

So how exactly will the election results impact American-Israeli relations? Tune in next Middle East Monday for the answer to that question.

The 45th President Trump

Feared the country would fall in a slump

So he jawboned the Fed.

It’s not easily led.

Would low interest rates give him a bump?