Cromwell

Donald Trump lies all the time, but rarely to deceive. Typically, it is for the purpose of remaining unpredictable. Unpredictability brings with it several advantages: it gives him more freedom of action; makes him the center of attention; and keeps his adversaries guessing about his ultimate objectives. In the end, it’s a dominance thing.

The problem is that real businessmen, as opposed to large-scale grifters, crave stability and predictability. Business by and large blew off Trump’s eccentricities until now because they assumed that he would ultimately behave in a manner consistent with their interests; after all, he was one of them, wasn’t he? On trade issues, however, they are no longer sure that is the case. Hence, the decline in investment and all of the speculation about a recession, which would put his pathetic presidency to an end.

Ironic, but fair, don’t you think?

Suppose you could devise American gun regulations from scratch, without having to worry about whether they were legally or practically possible. How would you do it?

I would do it by breaking them down into categories and reviewing their social utility. Here are the results:

1. RIFLES: Rifles are used almost exclusively for sport. They aren’t typically used in suicides, or to commit crimes, or even for personal protection. RESPONSE: Permit them with limited regulation, mostly focusing on use training.
2. ASSAULT WEAPONS: Assault weapons are only useful for committing extremely violent crimes, including mass murder. They aren’t used for personal protection or hunting. RESPONSE: Ban them.
3. HANDGUNS: This is the tough category, because it is where the gun violence action really is, the attention given to mass shootings notwithstanding. Handguns aren’t used for hunting. They are usually the weapon of choice for crimes and suicides. They are, however, used for recreation at gun ranges, and they are also used legitimately for personal protection. RESPONSE: Impose extensive regulations on their ownership and use. In most jurisdictions, where crime is not much of a problem, they could be completely banned. In areas in which personal protection is more of an issue, background checks, real training programs, and gun security measures would be required, and enforced rigorously.

Bernie Sanders has a problem; Elizabeth Warren has been embracing his policies and stealing his voters. She is essentially portraying herself as a more reasonable, intellectual, and electable version of Sanders. It’s working; he’s stuck in the mud. What can he do?

He has two choices. The first is to make a genuine effort to bring about the “revolution” by moving to the center on social issues and thus strengthening his appeal to reactionary white workers. The second is to move even further to the left, hope that Warren won’t follow him, and argue that Liz is just a lefty-come-lately.

It’s fairly clear that he is choosing Option B. Logically, it makes a certain amount of sense in the short run. In the long run, however, it will alienate moderate voters and put the nomination, let alone victory in a general election, out of reach.

Barack Obama was careful to avoid associating himself too closely with the pro-democracy movement in Iran because he was afraid that the protesters would be unfairly portrayed as American agents by the regime. He was severely criticized by the right for this alleged display of cowardice.

Donald Trump is saying little or nothing in support of the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. How is the GOP responding to this failure by a right-wing president to promote liberal democratic values? Do you hear a roar of anger from the base?

Of course not. As with stimulus and hard money, that was then, and this is now.

The Right: Obamacare is socialism! It’s a government takeover of medicine! Long lines, rationing, and death panels! It’s anti-American! It has to be torn out by the roots! Long live the free market!

The Left: OK, then we’ll just do single-payer.

The Right: Single-payer is socialism! It’s a government takeover of medicine! Long lines, rationing, and death panels! It’s anti-American! It has to be stopped at all costs! Long live the free market!

The Left: But you just said that about Obamacare, and the world didn’t come to an end. For that matter, you said it about Medicare, too. Why should anyone believe you this time?

The Right: Mumbles incoherently.

The prominent gay conservative (no, that’s not exactly an oxymoron) Andrew Sullivan reflects on a recent discussion with Michael Anton and concludes that a reactionary is a conservative who has been driven to extremes by unwelcome “top-down” social change. The theory sounds plausible. Does it fit the facts?

No. The increased restiveness of reactionaries is a recent development, but there have been no new affirmative action programs, the only significant new addition to the welfare state has been Obamacare (a repackaged and colorblind Mitt Romney program once embraced by the GOP), and the most significant legal/social change is gay marriage (Sullivan can hardly complain about that).

Reactionaries are more militant today because their sense of victimhood has vastly increased. This is due in part to their inability to prevail in the court of public opinion in the culture wars, a development that is clearly “bottom up.” The role of Fox News in stoking their anger cannot be overstated. But the biggest single change was the election of an African-American president. It suggested to reactionaries that the arc of history was running against them; they responded accordingly.

Trump’s “disloyalty” argument runs something like this:

1. Proper American Jews are loyal to Israel as well as their own country;
2. That means giving active support to the Israeli government of the day;
3. Trump is close to the current government, while some Democrats are extremely critical of it; therefore
4. A good American Jew is obligated to support both Netanyahu and Trump.

#1 accepts the old and dangerous trope about Jewish dual loyalty, but turns it on its head, and makes it a virtue rather than a vice. #2 is logically false; if that’s the standard, then the majority of my countrymen aren’t real Americans. #3 is unquestionably true. The conclusion fails because #1 and #2 are false.

The identification of Israel with white nationalist America is, of course, going to be hugely damaging to the Israelis in the long run. Who is to blame? Both Trump and Netanyahu, but mostly the latter, because he has been at it longer.

Donald Trump’s signature thought on political economy–mercantilism–had its heyday in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the European powers disposed of property without taking the slightest interest in the wishes of the indigenous people. He also wants to “take the oil” in Iraq, Syria, and Venezuela. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that he wants to buy Greenland. It’s completely consistent with his view of the world.

He probably thinks of Alaska as a precedent, but that was 150 years ago, and the Tsar didn’t exercise any control over Alaska outside of a few fairly miserable settlements on the sea. Times have changed a bit since then.

We probably should be grateful that he didn’t just invade, instead.

Donald Trump is a colossus. He alone was capable of saving the country from Hillary Clinton and the liberals. America was treated with contempt by the rest of the world during the Obama apology years, but today, everything has changed. Everyone respects us, the economy is running hot, we win every day, and America is great again!

But Donald Trump is also a victim. He is harassed mercilessly by the MSM and the Democrats. The judicial system won’t do his bidding. His friends and appointments invariably turn on him. The deep state battles him every day. No wonder he can’t get anything done. Everyone should feel sorry for him; Lord knows, he feels sorry for himself.

It’s a ridiculous mindset, on its face, but it appears to be shared by a large number of his fellow reactionaries. It is largely this combination of bravado and mutual victimhood which binds the billionaire casino owner and developer from New York City with his struggling white working class supporters. How can it be overcome? Not by lectures like the “1619 Project,” that’s for sure.

Left-wing pundits are correctly concerned that all of the progressives’ plans to remake America will be derailed by the filibuster. They are consequently indignant at the reluctance of several of the candidates to abolish it. They typically attribute this to a mistaken, anachronistic, misty-eyed romanticism about bipartisanship and deliberation in the Senate. Are they right?

Of course not. The candidates who don’t support abolishing the filibuster can foresee a time in which the GOP has control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. Does anyone doubt that the current version of the Republican Party would use the opportunity to completely gut the welfare state and ban abortion on a national level (once Roe has been overturned)? You could say that self-interest would prevent the counter-revolution, but Republican legislators have had great success using racism and the culture wars to sell this kind of a program to their base in the past, and that could well extend into the future.

Abolishing the filibuster is a gamble that comes with huge risks. The candidates who support abolition need to be open about their willingness to take those risks, and to make a compelling case as to how the worst can be avoided in the future.

The reactionary narrative on recent American history runs like this:

1. Life was good in the fifties. The white patriarchy was firmly in charge, and manufacturers were making good money and paying high wages.
2. The Civil Rights Movement and the culture wars of the sixties were a disaster for the moral fiber of the country.
3. The country was falling apart at the seams by 1980.
4. Reagan changed everything. By cutting taxes and siding openly with white social conservatives, he turned the country around. It was morning in America.
5. His GOP successors believed in tax cuts, too, but they didn’t fight the culture wars with enough gusto. Traditional values collapsed, and real Americans were no longer respected.
6. But Trump won in 2016, and America is great again!

Elizabeth Warren’s version of the narrative, on the other hand, would run something like this:

1. Culturally, the fifties left a lot to be desired, but they were, in fact, a golden age for American workers. Corporations were subject to very high taxes, and were forced to be good citizens. White workers were better off as a result.
2. The Civil Rights Movement and the culture wars of the sixties were a necessary response to the tyranny of the white patriarchy.
3. The problems of the late seventies were overblown, and were largely the result of bad luck.
4. Reagan made corporate greed fashionable. The massive increase in inequality, and the growing indifference of large corporations to anything other than profit, are attributable to his administration. Workers have been suffering ever since.
5. Elect me, and make capitalism great again!

If Warren is the nominee, the election will largely be a battle between these two competing narratives. Will the electorate agree that Reagan was a disaster? I have my doubts.

On current trends, the GOP as we know it is doomed as a force in national elections. Its old white supporters will die and be replaced by left-leaning millennials, largely of color. America in 2035 could thus look like California today. How will the party adjust?

There are several choices:

1. THE GOP EVOLVES INTO A RESPONSIBLE CENTER-RIGHT PARTY: The best alternative is, unfortunately, the least likely, based on its behavior today.
2. NATIONAL CONSERVATISM: The party goes populist on economic issues. Businessmen gnash their teeth, but at least they’re being protected from socialism.
3. GRAND OLD OBSTRUCTIONIST PARTY: The GOP collectively gives up hope of winning the presidency, but relies on its continuing power in rural states, the judicial system, and the filibuster to prevent anything like the “revolution.”
4. DOUBLE DOWN ON VOTE SUPPRESSION: If you can’t win over the voters, you can at least try to stop them from voting! This will require efforts that are far more effective than what has been accomplished to date.
5. FULL FASCISM: Peaceful vote suppression may not be enough, so extralegal violence could be part of the equation. Hey, our way of life is in danger, and we’re justified in doing anything, including wrecking constitutional government, to protect it.

So which will it be? I honestly don’t know, but it’s hard to be optimistic at this point.

It’s January, 2020, and the recession is in full swing. Trump predictably is blaming everyone around him and screaming for stimulus. The Fed is trying, but has little ammunition with which to work, so it’s really up to Congress. What happens there?

The GOP, true to form, demands tax cuts. House Democrats aren’t even slightly interested in that approach, because: (a) tax cuts are an extremely inefficient form of stimulus, as most of the money is saved, not spent; (b) we’ve already been down that street; and (c) no one wants to bail out a flailing president. In order to keep faith with the American people, however, the House passes a series of large spending increases, similar to the spending elements of the Obama stimulus. The bill then goes to the Senate.

Mitch McConnell and his allies have a terrible dilemma. Everyone remembers how they demonized stimulus during the Obama years, and at least a little bit of the opposition was genuine and ideological, as opposed to cynical and opportunistic. If he supports the bill, he violates one of the GOP’s few principles. If he doesn’t, the GOP and Trump are going down in November. Which does he choose?

This could easily happen, and my guess is that McConnell’s desire for power is much stronger than any concerns about deficit spending.

Netanyahu, of course, routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being anti-Semitic. If that were the standard, about half the Jews in Israel would be anti-Semites. The better, and harder, question is whether anyone who rejects Israel’s right to exist is by definition anti-Semitic.

You can only answer that question in the affirmative if you believe that Zionism is an inherent, integral part of being Jewish. Historically speaking, until relatively recent times, that has not been the case. And so, I would say the answer to the question is no.

Personally, I do support Israel’s right to exist, and do not agree with the BDS crowd. In addition, there are certainly plenty of people who reject the whole concept of Israel who are, in fact, anti-Semitic. Being critical of Israel even to the point of refusing to recognize it is not, however, anti-Semitic in and of itself.

When the Civil War broke out, the value of the slaves owned by plantation owners dwarfed all of the capital owned by residents of the Union. As a result, the South, as one would predict, won an easy victory in the Civil War. And thank God they did! Without American slavery, the entire world economy would have come to a standstill, and we would all be poor today.

No? You say that didn’t happen? Your teachers told you that the North won the war, largely because its industrial capacity was much larger than the South’s, and that a great boom ensued after the war even after the demise of slavery? How can we reconcile that with the assertion that slavery was the foundation of the American economy, and that we are living off the proceeds from it even today?

You can’t, and you shouldn’t try. Most Americans at the time of the Civil War were subsistence farmers with no stake in cotton markets or slavery. The industrial activity that was taking place in the North at the time was mostly small scale and for local markets. Cotton was a global industry, mostly financed by London bankers. They weren’t putting money into farms in the North.

The manufacture of cotton cloth was the first truly globalized industry, so naturally it gets more than its share of attention from economists, historians, and African-Americans with an ideological point to make. That didn’t mean it had a significant impact on most of the citizens of the Union back in the 1860’s, it didn’t mean that the world’s economy was doomed when slavery was abolished, and it certainly didn’t equate to an ability to wage war successfully against an emerging industrial colossus, albeit one that was not yet generating huge revenues through exports.