Cromwell

1. WILL WARREN SHINE? She is the only first-tier candidate speaking on the first night. Can she make a strong impression by sounding both wonky and punchy? After seeing her on tape, I think the answer will be yes.
2. RIGHT VS. LEFT: Since Warren is behind in the polls and has a history with Biden, expect her to get personal in her criticism. Bernie, the following night, is more likely to stick to his own talking points. Biden will have the advantage of having a day to consider his responses to Warren; he will have the delicate task of swatting away her arguments while continuing to keep the focus on beating Trump. Can he pull that off in his limited speaking time? TBD.
3. CAN KAMALA CRUSH IT? Harris has the personality and the talent to command the stage. This may be her last, best chance, so she had better take it.
4. WHICH SECOND-TIER CANDIDATE WILL EMERGE? One or two of the lesser-known candidates are bound to impress with their zingers and become bigger factors in the race. The rest are just doomed to obscurity and an early electoral death. For these candidates, as they say on reality shows, the stakes have never been higher.
5. WILL TRUMP’S TWEETS OVERSHADOW THEM ALL? Very possibly. It’s going to be a very strange dynamic, but it may well work to the advantage of his targets–most likely to be Warren, Sanders, and above all, “Sleepy Joe.”

Apart from the Intolerable Acts, which were a harsh and unfair form of collective punishment, it’s hard to make the argument that the American colonists were much oppressed by the British government on the eve of the Revolution. There was a reasonable case for Parliament to tax them for their defense, they had their own assemblies, and for the most part, their rights as British subjects were respected. So why did they rebel?

For several reasons. First of all, many of them were the descendants of people who fled what they viewed as religious persecution in Great Britain. They consequently had no reason to love the mother country. Second, some of them weren’t even British by ancestry. Third, Britain might have kept a light footprint in the colonies, but that meant the mother country wasn’t doing much to help them. Most of the protection they needed from Indian attacks on a day-to-day basis they were providing themselves. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it was clear that the British government was going to be an obstacle to progress in the long run, both through protectionist legislation and by preventing the colonists from moving west and taking Indian lands.

And so, in spite of the risks, a large majority of Americans supported the patriot cause. If that had not been the case, the Revolution probably would have failed.

Imagine that you are President Rouhani of Iran. You desperately want to avoid war and escape sanctions, but the country is far from united behind you. The Revolutionary Guards are basically a state within a state, and the Supreme Leader blows hot and cold. You can’t rely on controlling either of them.

You can’t realistically expect to win a clear military or diplomatic victory in this latest confrontation with the Great Satan. Given Trump’s track record, however, it is plausible that you could do a USMCA and sell him on insignificant changes to the initial nuclear deal. He needs something he can call a “win,” so give him one, as long as it doesn’t affect your interests in any meaningful way.

The problem is that, while Trump himself can easily be bought off, he is surrounded by people who are panting for war: Bibi; MBS; MBZ; Bolton; and Pompeo, just to name a few. In addition, your strategy of mobilizing the Europeans against America isn’t working, because Trump doesn’t care what they think. He is far more interested in Tucker Carlson’s opinion than Angela Merkel’s.

You could run to Putin for protection, but you know what a cynical bastard he is. He would sell you out in a heartbeat for something he really wants, such as a free hand in Ukraine. Xi is more promising. He needs Persian Gulf oil, he’s more reliable, and he’s not on your border.

And so, my advice is as follows:

1. Internationalize the conflict to the maximum extent possible. Try to get the Chinese involved in some grand diplomatic solution that could be spun as a “win” to Trump and the American public.
2. Do your best to keep the Revolutionary Guards from killing any Americans.
3. Send out the message, over and over again, that war with Iran will look like the war with Iraq. Carlson clearly believes that, and his opinion matters. Trump is afraid he will lose his base if he launches another Iraq War.

Will any of this work? Unfortunately, events are more powerful than you are. There are no guarantees. The odds are worse than even. But the situation is not completely hopeless.

“Hamilton,” the musical, is a huge hit with the American public. How would the current GOP feel about the man himself? Here’s how:

1. CLs: Expanding the size of the central government and subsidizing industry–ugh! Tommy J all the way!
2. PBPs: The founder of American democratic capitalism–he da man!
3. CDs: Mixed bag. Love the late blooming enthusiasm for religion and traditional values; hate the womanizing.
4. Reactionaries: Also a mixed bag, but for slightly different reasons. We don’t approve of his enthusiasm for immigrants, but we also appreciate the belated appreciation for religion and traditional values, and we like the protectionism and the emphasis on making America great.

How would he fit in a Trumpian world? Not well, I think.

For a Conservative Libertarian, freedom from government regulation is an overriding value. Government measures that attempt to maximize the overall welfare of society by redistributing wealth or limiting choices are to be avoided at all costs. If the price of that is a grossly unequal society, that’s ok, because regulation is a slippery slope, governments often make bad trade-offs, and 1984 is never very far away.

CLs typically portray themselves as defenders of the Founders’ view of the Constitution as a device to limit federal power. That is patently incorrect; they are, in fact, the heirs of the Anti-Federalists, and their adoration should logically be directed at the Articles of Confederation.

Liberals, like CLs, believe in limited government, but for a specific purpose–to maximize the potential of individuals. They believe that dogmatic libertarianism in practice inevitably leads to concentrations of wealth and power that were not contemplated by the Founders. These concentrations lead to distortions of the political system, successful rent-seeking, and oligarchy. Government action is (regrettably) necessary on a regular basis to fight the natural trend towards oligarchy and to provide the less fortunate with a reasonable chance to refine and use their special talents. That, in turn, increases the overall amount of freedom (in both the positive and negative senses) and maximizes individual excellence, to society’s benefit.

The two groups see society as being a collection of individuals. As such, they stand apart from the collectivist elements (Democratic Socialists for the Democrats; Reactionaries and Christian Democrats for the Republicans) in their respective parties. The difference is that the liberals represent the majority of the Democratic Party; CLs are a small minority within the GOP.

In the Bagehot column in the latest Economist, the author notes that Plato considered the most important qualities of a statesman to be truthfulness and expertise, and the worst flaws to be narcissism and self-indulgence.

Recent experience certainly tells us that Plato was right, doesn’t it?

Some left-wing pundits have observed the similarity between the Sanders and Warren campaigns and wondered if Bernie’s embrace of “democratic socialism” really matters. The answer is yes, for three reasons:

1. At the most obvious level, elderly voters are turned off by the “socialist” label, so Warren’s chances of winning are much better than Bernie’s.
2. Bernie’s Marxist mindset has a big impact on the way he processes information. He views the world through the prism of the class struggle, and sees oligarchs, imperialists, and the exploited masses everywhere. As a result, just to use one example, he lumps Putin, Xi, and MBS together as tools of oligarchy, when they are in fact very different. That would have implications for our foreign policy that I do not care to contemplate.
3. Perhaps most importantly, liberals and socialists have different views about the just society and the role of the state. To a liberal, the objective of society is to free the individual to realize his potential to the maximum extent possible. Excessive levels of inequality are inefficient in this respect, and can present a threat to the proper workings of a democratic system, but for the most part, the role of government should be limited. To a socialist, equality is the overriding objective in a just society, not freedom or excellence. Hence the title of this post.

Most socialist systems over the past century have been characterized by economic failure and political oppression. We’ll give Bernie the benefit of the doubt and assume that his model society is not the USSR, but the UK around 1950. No one went hungry, and everyone had health care through the newly-created NHS, but many commodities were rationed, and life was pretty drab. Is that the kind of country to which we should aspire? I don’t think so.

Left-wing pundits and the other candidates predictably went nuts went it became known that Biden had touted his ability to cooperate with members of the hard right–even segregationists. He’s soft on bigots! Maybe he’s even one himself! He needs to apologize!

All of which is ridiculous. Whether you agree with it or not, the basis of Biden’s candidacy, other than his unique level of experience, is his willingness to work with anyone to improve the condition of the country and get rid of Trump, and his refusal to act like Trump and demonize everyone who disagrees with him. What is he then supposed to say? That the Republican Party as a whole is beyond the pale? That everyone on the right is doomed to PC damnation?

If you want a candidate who thinks that America can be somehow completely transformed if the Democrats get 51 percent of the vote in 2020, vote for someone else. Biden is not your man. Just make sure to ask hard questions about how the transformation is going to survive Republican intransigence, the survival instincts of moderate Democrats, the filibuster, and the Roberts Court before you make that decision.

Twitter, alas, has become a huge factor in campaigns. It leaves candidates with a mostly unpalatable choice. You can work as hard as possible to be inoffensive and avoid the mobs, but then you come across as boring and inauthentic. Or, you can swagger around and either embrace Twitter or ignore it, and face the wrath of the mobs, whose opinions tend to show up in the MSM in short order.

Which is the better approach? It depends on the thickness of your skin, how much you enjoy agitating people, and how well known you are. It works for Trump; for, say, Cory Booker, not so much.

Perhaps the Democrats should nominate Beyoncé. The Beyhive would be more than a match for the rabid right on social media.

I’VE GOT A PLAN FOR THAT

If you can’t escape your student debt.

If your child care needs just can’t be met.

If you’re down and out, well, don’t you fret.

I’ve got a plan for that.

_____________

If you think that Trump distorts the facts.

If you think you’re paying too much tax.

If the system screws you ’cause you’re black.

I’ve got a plan for that.

_________________

If you think the rich have too much power.

If you feel your life is turning sour.

If you need the woman of the hour

I’ve got a plan for that.

The NYT taped the Democratic candidates (minus Biden) answering the same questions–a mixture of policy and personal inquiries–and put the tapes on their web page. The effect of it is similar to a debate, except you can view it at your leisure. If you have an opportunity, I recommend it.

I watched selected responses from most of the first and second-tier candidates. I skipped Bernie, because I’m already completely familiar with his act. Here are my impressions:

1. Booker comes across as being polished and articulate, but he never really seems to answer the questions or say anything really substantial.
2. Harris is effective when she answers questions spontaneously. Mostly, she doesn’t.
3. Klobuchar is refreshingly and openly moderate, but she talks too much, and her panders to Iowa voters are annoying.
4. Mayor Pete gives clear and thoughtful answers to the questions. I can see why he has emerged as a second-tier candidate from complete obscurity.
5. Warren is definitely the best of the lot. She has succeeded in honing her message over time. That bodes well for her performance during the debate.

Have you ever seriously looked at the lyrics for “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”? It’s an abolitionist song, and it’s stark and appalling. The theme of it is that slavery was America’s original sin, that it must be redeemed in oceans of blood, and that the Union Army is the instrument of the Almighty for that purpose. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Oceans of blood there in fact were. The last estimate of casualties I saw was around 600,000. Imagine the impact that would have had relative to the population at the time. Virtually everyone in the country would have had a family member or a friend who was killed or wounded in the war. The national pain would have been beyond description.

And so, the next time you hear someone with a short memory say that we as a nation haven’t truly paid the debt for slavery, tell him our ancestors already gave beyond his wildest dreams.

Warren and Sanders are undoubtedly going to argue that Biden (and, by implication, Obama) is far too weak on China. Will their arguments persuade the Democratic electorate?

Not if he handles them properly. The Obama/Biden approach to China was to create a rules-based system with the support of our allies–the TPP. What do the fundis have to offer as an alternative? If they don’t like the TPP, that would suggest that they support aggressive unilateral actions–in other words, they agree with Trump, which is hardly a winning argument with most Democrats. If they think the answer is to subsidize national tech champions, isn’t that the kind of corporate welfare that is the hallmark of a “rigged” system?

As I’ve noted before, there are essentially four ways to respond to the rise of China: (a) acquiesce to it, and accept spheres of influence; (b) fight a war of annihilation; (c) engage in the same kind of mercantilist behavior, focusing on subsidies, forced technology transfers, and discriminatory regulations; or (d) double down on what made you great in the first place–an open capitalist system based on international law.

Warren’s “economic patriotism” approach, with its emphasis on subsidies and worker-friendly codes of conduct for corporations, is clearly a version of (c). It sounds a little like Hamilton, or, if you prefer more recent history, an updated version of FDR’s NRA.

Subsidies are probably going to play some role in this process regardless of who wins the election. My concerns about Warren’s plan, from a historical perspective, are: (a) our country is not the economic pygmy that it was in Hamilton’s day; (b) nor is it in the throes of the Great Depression; (c) the NRA was a failure even before it was rejected by the Supreme Court; and (d) it sounds like an effort to create highly-regulated national champions in selected areas of tech, which is inconsistent with her plan to break up the current tech giants, and which would create its own economic and political problems. If you don’t believe me, just ask the South Koreans about the uneasy relationships between their giant corporations and the government.

In short, I don’t think we need “Made in America 2025.” The Obama/Biden approach, which is (d), is more consistent with our system, and will work better in the long run. More on the politics of this issue in future posts.

Any movement that has to rely on its ability to turn out hundreds of thousands of people on a regular basis to block government initiatives is ultimately doomed to fail. And so it is in Hong Kong; the Chinese government is too single-minded, too ruthless, and too strong to lose in the long run. Still, you have to be hugely impressed by the courage and the fortitude of the demonstrators. They are showing the world that liberal democratic values aren’t simply about money, and that some people can’t be bought, even in today’s world.

Donald Trump, for his part, couldn’t care less; after all, it wasn’t about him, and he thinks liberal democratic values are a nuisance.

The images of the demonstrations have gone out all over the world. For the Chinese government, which has invested billions in soft power, they are a nightmare. To which I say: good. Pandas, kung fu movies, and investments in infrastructure only get you so far.