If you have a chance to read Ai Weiwei’s column about Hong Kong in today’s NYT, do it. It does a wonderful job, in a backhanded way, of describing how liberal democracy should not be judged exclusively, or even primarily, in terms of economic growth.
Just because I think the current version of Hong Kong is doomed doesn’t mean I lack sympathy with the protestors. In a way, it makes them more admirable, not less.
Readers of this blog will know that I have consistently opposed free public college. I view college as an investment, much like buying a house, not a public necessity. It makes sense for many people, and usually pays off, but not for everyone. Why should the large number of people who choose not to go to college be taxed for the benefit of others, particularly when the investment is usually made by future white collar workers, and pays off? It doesn’t make sense to me.
At least you can make a straight-face argument that the knowledge economy requires wider access to college, and that a degree is now effectively the new secondary education. But what is the public benefit attached to wiping out all existing student debt? How can that be justified, not only to taxpayers who didn’t go to college, but to people who scrimped and sacrificed and paid off their loans? Debt forgiveness doesn’t increase access; it is just a bailout, mostly for people who actually made a successful investment.
Wiping out student debt is a pander directed at the millennial vote, pure and simple. The taxpayers didn’t pay off my mortgage; I’m not the least bit interested in paying off an entire class of debts (with some possible exceptions on an individual basis for extreme hardship cases) unless, as with the banks in the Great Recession, not to do so will result in a national disaster.
On the Democrat candidate Joe.
He sounds a bit old, don’t you know.
He’d best up his game;
Not rely on his fame;
‘Cause he’s still got a long way to go.
The Fed nominee known as Judy
Thinks fealty to Trump is her duty.
She’s been big on gold
But that seems so old
High interest rates make her boss moody.
To Paul Krugman, the problem is the .001 percent, which has sucked up virtually all of the added wealth over the last 40 years. To people like David Brooks and Ross Douthat, it is the 20 percent, with their helicopter parenting, educational advantages, and gated communities. Who is right?
They are talking about different things. Krugman’s concern is about inequalities in wealth. The numbers back him up; the 20 percent has basically broken even since Reagan, while the .001 percent has thrived, to say the least. GOP pundits are more excised about social mobility, which probably has declined as a result of credentialism and the shift to a knowledge-based economy.
Which is the bigger problem? Since I’m not a member of the .001 percent, I’m naturally going to say wealth inequality, which has corrosive effects on our economy and our political system. I will admit the point is debatable, and that the perspective of a reactionary worker might be different. One thing is certain, however; regulating growing wealth inequality is a lot easier at the federal level than barriers to social mobility, which are created by innumerable decisions of private individuals, institutions, and local governments.
It finally happened. AOC accused Nancy Pelosi of being a bigot. It was inevitable, I suppose.
The essence of the problem is that the two have different agendas. Pelosi is principally concerned with running the government in a moderate and predictable way for the benefit of the American people and with defeating Republicans in elections. AOC and the rest of the Squad want to convert the Democratic Party to their democratic socialist platform. Winning elections and keeping Republicans out of power is a lower priority, certainly in the short run, and possibly forever.
If AOC and her friends get their way, the small tent Democratic Party will reign unchallenged in a handful of large urban areas, and lose everywhere else. I agree with Pelosi; until the Squad can prove that it has a truly national following, and can win elections in red and purple districts, its agenda can and should be disregarded.
The MSM are making a much bigger deal over the USWNT’s World Cup victory than they did in 2015. The reason can be described in two words: Donald Trump.
Think about it–the women’s team is a perfect blue icon. Soccer, not football! Women, not men! Some of them are even lesbians! What could be more PC than that!
There is only one thing to add: Megan Rapinoe would make a much more compelling Democratic candidate than several of the people who were on the stage a few weeks ago.
If there is one thing that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Donald Trump agree on, it is that 2016 was a watershed election for this country. Peasants with pitchforks stormed the ballot box demanding dramatic changes in a rigged system. The result was a president who constantly throws cultural red meat to his white nationalist base and believes he can win in 2020 without making any effort to appeal to the center. Warren and Sanders, for their part, think the system is more rigged than ever, and that the key to success in 2020 is the mobilization of the blue base for what they view as real change; they have also written off the center.
They’re all wrong. Trump won the GOP nomination because he was unopposed in his lane, and his principal rivals were not. Even running against her own historic unpopularity, the constant references to her e-mail pseudo-scandal, and the understandable desire for change after eight years of Obama, Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote, and would have won the election but for the efforts of Jill Stein. That doesn’t amount to an overwhelming public demand for a revolution, which was subsequently confirmed by the outcome of the midterms.
Trump can’t win in 2020 without the votes from people in the right-center who can’t stand him. Will the Democrats try to win those people over, or push them away by promising a PC paradise which identifies them as racial and capitalist oppressors? That is the real question that will be decided over the next 16 months.
That would be Mayor Pete, and coming from me, it’s not an insult. Like Macron, Mayor Pete is a supremely logical technocrat. He processes information quickly and gives clear and thoughtful answers to questions. His appeal to pundits and wonks makes perfect sense.
That said, I have three major concerns about him as a presidential candidate, none of which has anything to do with his sexual orientation, which is likely to be a factor only for people who would never vote for him, anyway:
The best American analogy in recent history, in my opinion, is Michael Dukakis. How did that turn out?
His candidacy won’t survive Super Tuesday.
Cory Booker should be a first-tier candidate. He’s clearly qualified for the job. He’s bright and articulate. He has a signature policy proposal that has plenty of merit. He has an interesting biography. He has a commanding presence, and looks good in a suit. He’s broadly acceptable to the entire party, and he doesn’t scare white people. What’s not to like?
Three things:
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT: The second African-American president doesn’t have the same sizzle as the first gay or female president.
RIGHT MAN, WRONG TIME: Party activists appear to want someone who will kick Trump’s butt around the stage, not someone who talks about love and unity.
BABY BONDS AREN’T WORKING: His signature proposal probably wouldn’t get through the Senate, and if it did, it would take decades to provide any real help to anyone. African-Americans are looking for relief in the short run, not in 2040.
Booker’s case isn’t hopeless, but realistically, he needs the realo candidates in front of him to falter, starting with Biden. Look for him to ramp up the attacks on Biden in the near future.
Unlike Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren doesn’t talk about the “revolution,” probably because it sounds too Marxist and scares off the old people. Like Bernie, however, Warren needs some sort of dramatic change to get her innumerable plans through the system. What should she call it, since the “revolution” is out of bounds?
How about the “Reformation?”
Imagine that you are an owner of a fast food restaurant, and you are now facing a $15 per hour minimum wage. You have the following choices: (a) cut your number of employees and hope your consumers will tolerate the corresponding reduction in your level of service; (b) reduce your staffing level through automation; (c) raise prices; or (d) accept a significantly lower level of profits. What do you do?
Probably some of all of them. Each individual case will be different. There will be job losses, but we don’t know how many, or how the trade-off will work. In addition, across-the-board price increases will fuel inflation, which could cause the Fed to raise interest rates, which will mean a reduction in growth. Finally, it is the moral obligation of all of society, not just fast food consumers or business owners, to provide workers with a reasonable standard of living.
The minimum wage is a convoluted attempt to redistribute wealth that will fail in many, and possibly most, instances. Compare that to increases in the EITC, which won’t result in higher prices, won’t drive up the cost of labor, and will more effectively redistribute wealth. Doesn’t that approach make more sense?
Let’s face it: minimum wage increases make for good politics, because they create the illusion that what amount to privatized welfare payments have been earned through work. In all other respects, they are bad policy.
The incumbent Republican president was a social conservative who repeatedly threw red meat to his base. Lacking respect for the truth and the rule of law, he was distrusted by the left and some genuine conservatives alike. He successfully pressured the Fed to lower interest rates. His relationship with the press was fraught, to say the least. He was a uniquely divisive figure, loved by some, hated by more.
The Democrats responded by nominating a candidate who was well to the left of the political mainstream. They were crushed in the ensuing election, as you might expect.
Is it 1972 or 2020? We’ll know soon enough.
Everyone knows how Donald Trump negotiates at this point. He takes extreme positions; he creates as much leverage as possible through threats of nuclear war, tariffs, and sanctions; and he waits for his opponent to surrender. If that doesn’t work, he takes whatever he can get and spins it as a “win.”
Most world leaders have concluded the best way to deal with him is to collaborate with him on the illusion of an American “win.” Presumably for domestic political reasons, the Iranian leadership is refusing to play that game. In fact, they are engaging in Trumpian tactics of their own by escalating. They apparently believe that the combination of pressure from other countries and Trump’s own lack of enthusiasm for war will ultimately cause the US to back down.
Don’t bet on it. Remember, Trump is surrounded by people who want war, and he isn’t going to accept humiliation on this or any issue. The Iranians, in my opinion, are making a serious mistake.
The supreme leadership of Iran
Doesn’t seem to possess a good plan.
They’re pushing Trump back.
That invites an attack.
‘Cause he’s desperate to prove he’s the man.