Cromwell

By “the field,” I mean Bullock and Klobuchar. No one else merits any discussion.

The concept: Moderate, qualified Biden replacement with a history of winning in rural areas can beat Trump in 2020.

The challenge: Why won’t anyone look at me?

The prognosis: Either could win a general election, and their chances will improve if they can get on a debate stage with fewer candidates. For the most part, however, it is all steak and no sizzle, which is a loss to the Democratic Party and the nation. Chances of success: 5 percent.

Tucker Carlson says white supremacy is a “hoax.” He essentially thinks that white supremacy is synonymous with Nazis, who would have trouble filling a phone booth in this country, so where’s the problem?

If you deconstruct it, here is his line of thought:

1. America is a white country, settled by white Europeans, with a white culture.
2. People who are not of white European stock cannot possibly assimilate here.
3. We white people have an obligation to protect our culture.
4. Therefore, keeping non-white people out is just a matter of self-preservation.

It’s about culture, not biology; we have no problem with non-white people, just as long as they don’t mix with us and mongrel up our way of life. Therefore, we aren’t white supremacists.

The problem, of course, is that #1 is only partially true, #2 is not true at all, and #3 and #4 must fall for being based on bogus premises. And Carlson and his reactionary ilk, with their fixation on protecting white European culture, are actually white supremacists, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Candidates, pundits, and debate moderators have identified the continuing existence of private insurance as the core issue dividing fundis from realos on Medicare-for-all. The real question is much broader than that–it is risk aversion, as shown in the following questions:

1. I SAW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ROLLOUT OF OBAMACARE. I’M OLD AND SICK, AND I CAN’T AFFORD ANY INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SAME THING OCCURS ON A FAR GRANDER SCALE WITH THE NEW SYSTEM? I would love to reassure you on that point, but, hey, to err is human. In the long run, the inevitable administrative problems will be resolved, but in the long run, we’re all dead.
2. I’VE BEEN PAYING INTO MEDICARE MY WHOLE LIFE. HOW DO I KNOW THAT MY TAX MONEY WON’T JUST BE SHIFTED TO PAY FOR MILLENNIALS WHO NEVER PAID A DIME INTO THE SYSTEM? That isn’t Bernie’s plan, but once the process starts, you can never really know for sure where it will end.
3. I DON’T TRUST THE GOP. HOW DO I KNOW THEY WON’T CUT THE QUALITY OF CARE TO FINANCE SOME NEW TAX CUT? That would be risky and unpopular, but let’s not pretend it couldn’t happen. The NHS gets cut occasionally, and the GOP historically gets away with hurting its constituents for the benefit of the donor class by ratcheting up the culture war.
4. I HAVE EMPLOYER-BASED INSURANCE. HOW DO I KNOW THAT MY EMPLOYER WILL ACTUALLY USE HIS SAVINGS TO INCREASE MY WAGES? That’s the theory, but it actually depends on how much bargaining power you have. If we’re in a recession, or your job can be shipped overseas, there are no guarantees you will see any of that money, and you could wind up worse off financially, after taxes, than you are today.
5. IS A SYSTEM WITH FEW OR NO CO-PAYS TRULY REALISTIC? The Sanders proposal is much more generous on co-pays than other existing single-payer programs. Based on that, you can probably count on them to be increased significantly over time.

The bottom line is that the public has plenty of good reasons to be concerned about the government’s ability to deliver on Bernie’s promises. That’s the hurdle he has to overcome; it isn’t that everyone is in love with private insurance.

The concept: Biden without the baggage. He’s a younger, more vigorous replacement if Biden falters.

The challenge: To be the one who picks up the pieces for realos if Warren destroys their champion. He’ll have lots of competition, including Harris and Booker.

The prognosis: Mayor Pete has plenty of intellect, but no swagger. It’s amusing to think of him ripping Trump a new one in Norwegian at a debate, but it won’t happen, because he just doesn’t have a strong enough presence. Chances of success: 5 percent.

The nation is split over guns.

For violence, we’re number one.

The right thinks we’re blessed

To be stuck in this mess.

With wackos who kill just for fun.

The concept: Millennials! Hold on to Clinton’s voters and drive up millennial participation by offering them lots of free stuff.

The challenge: It comes in three parts. First, she has to pick off as many Sanders voters as possible to win the fundi lane. Second, she has to convince Biden supporters that they should overlook ideology in favor of competence while she is reducing their candidate to a quivering mass of goo during the debates. Finally, she has to overcome just about every identity prejudice possible to beat Trump.

The prognosis: Step #1 is the easy part, although there are plenty of Bernie voters who would choose Biden over her for identity reasons. Step #2 is an exercise in threading the needle; the Biden supporters could easily opt for Booker or Harris over her if she comes across as being offensive. Step #3 is the really daunting part, because Warren is a dream opponent for Trump. He will, for the most part, refuse to engage on any of the ostensible issues and fight his campaign solely on identity, his strong suit; I’ll have more on that in my next Warren’s day post. His tactics will probably work unless we have a recession or an unsuccessful war. Chances of success: 20 percent.

Standing on a debate stage, Elizabeth Warren just radiates righteous anger. She smolders. She seethes. And with good reason! Fighting a rigged status quo is her calling card. She’ll never stop fighting until she wins for America, and the plutocracy is vanquished for good.

The subtext behind this is clear: Barack Obama failed to transform America because he wasn’t willing to fight the powers that be. He was a wimp. President Warren won’t make that mistake.

Here are my reactions:

1. There are millions of us who just want peace in the country–not a war without end.
2. Given what happened just a few days ago, is it really a good idea to increase the temperature of our politics?
3. Anger works for Republicans–it certainly worked for Trump. Democrats, on the other hand, do better with hope. Just ask Obama and Bill Clinton.
4. Obama discovered fairly early in his presidency that he had a better chance of getting things through the system if he didn’t take ownership of them, because the GOP would automatically oppose anything that had his name on it. How would a President Warren fare any differently? Fighting with Mitch McConnell doesn’t make him any weaker or less steadfast.

The bottom line is that fighting can be useful at times, but it can also be futile and even counterproductive. The bully pulpit has been shown throughout recent times to be grossly overrated. Sometimes, you just have to pick your spots. Warren, for all of her intellect, doesn’t appear to understand that.

By all accounts, the police responded to the alarm in Dayton remarkably quickly. And yet, a man with a semi-automatic weapon managed to kill nine people in about thirty seconds.

Think about that the next time someone tells you that the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The concept: Bring back the Obama coalition! Increase the number of young and minority voters relative to 2016, while holding on to enough white workers to beat Trump.

The challenge: One of them has to eliminate the other and then inherit Biden’s realo voters after the latter is annihilated during the debates.

The prognosis: This concept worked in 2008 and 2012. In very different ways, I think both of them can appeal to enough white workers to win a general election. Can they get past Biden first? They will probably need some unwitting assistance from Warren for that to happen. Chance of success: 20 percent.

Gun rights are naturally associated with the GOP, but it’s a little more complicated than that; only the CLs and the Reactionaries (of course!) are passionate gun supporters. Guns have no appeal whatsoever for CDs, and they’re irrelevant to the PBP agenda.

Lots of PBPs are suburban women who have reason to fear uncontrolled gun ownership. Massacres with automatic weapons don’t exactly help sell them on the GOP brand. Is there an opening here for the Democrats?

Yes, if done properly. If your objective is to bring about the “revolution” by converting large numbers of reactionary white male workers, you would be wise to try to reconcile the Democrats’ agenda with gun ownership instead of attacking guns head on. But if your plan is merely to win the election by peeling off potential swing voters in the suburbs, you would be wise to hit this issue really, really hard in 2020.

Guns don’t kill people; video games kill people. Or so says the GOP.

Then why do video games only kill people in this country?

George W. Bush sent troops to Iraq to impose liberal democratic values and create a model state for the Middle East. Thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, lost their lives as a result. Iraq predictably wound up as a ramshackle democracy and an Iranian client state. It was a disaster.

When Qaddafi threatened to exterminate Libyan rebels, our European allies persuaded a somewhat reluctant Barack Obama to assist the insurgents with air power. The campaign was a military success, and the government was toppled, but no one had a viable plan for what came next. The country is still engulfed in a civil war. It was a disaster.

When the Arab Spring came to Damascus, neither Obama nor Trump was willing to provide any meaningful military assistance to the rebels. Assad, with lots of foreign help, turned his country into a pile of rubble. Hundreds of thousands died, and millions left, destabilizing the area and European politics, to boot. It was a disaster.

Both Obama and Trump, albeit for slightly different reasons, have supported the Saudi war in Yemen. It has created a humanitarian disaster for minimal geopolitical gain.

What is the message from this? Your first response is probably to stay out of the Middle East altogether, and there is something to that. The real lesson, however, is to stick to our core mission of preventing terrorism and keeping the oil flowing, and to avoid any big military or political projects. That is a reasonably limited goal, and is achievable.

The NRA makes a great scapegoat for the Democrats, just like Wall Street, drug companies, and fossil fuel industries, but the real cause here goes much deeper than that. As I’ve noted many times before, to a reactionary, guns aren’t objects; they’re icons representing strength, independence, masculinity, Christianity, and the rejection of a government that they view as being hostile to all of those values. The NRA is just the most prominent mouthpiece for those views.

As long as reactionaries continue to feel this way and comprise a substantial part of the electorate, there will be little or no progress on gun violence. Appalling as these events and that statement may be, that’s just the way it is.

The concept: Clintonism without Clinton’s baggage and unpopularity. Hold on to Clinton’s voters, appeal to white male workers through identity politics and a degree of economic populism, win the Never Trumpers with reasonably moderate policy proposals, and take advantage of Trump’s unpopularity with millennials, women, and minorities.

The challenge: Surviving numerous debates with Elizabeth Warren, who will be looking to take him apart. It could happen.

The prognosis: The concept is sound; the candidate’s personal frailties are the issue. Chance of success: 40 percent.

Based on history and culture, every nation is exceptional. What makes American exceptionalism unique is its focus on politics and the belief that it can and will work everywhere in the world. Historically, Americans have argued that what some call bourgeois freedoms are universal rights, and that any country that observes them will thrive. This belief in universal rights, and America’s obligation to enforce them, has led us into a number of quagmires, but it has also resulted in greater freedom and prosperity in most of the world.

National conservatives don’t believe in that version of American exceptionalism. To them, American exceptionalism revolves around history and culture; in that sense, it is the same as Russian or Chinese or Israeli exceptionalism. The rest of the “America First” agenda follows naturally from that premise. Why would America fight for universal rights if they aren’t universal, but arise from a specific set of historical circumstances that aren’t present in most of the world?