Cromwell

Regime change is hard. If you don’t believe me, just ask Juan Guaido.

Venezuela and Iran are similar in that Trump has committed our country to an aggressive course of action without providing a plausible Plan B short of war. In Venezuela, it appears that he is willing to tolerate a slow defeat; Brazil and Colombia aren’t interested in fighting his battle for him, he can’t abide invasions and occupations, and no one would take a nuclear threat seriously, so what other choice does he have? With Iran, however, he has MBS, MBZ, Bibi, Bolton, and Pompeo baying for war, no diplomatic support, and an adversary with a nuclear program, a finger on the world’s supply line, and no interest in negotiations. The result, therefore, will be different.

Three ways:

1. Calling him “Sleepy Joe” doesn’t exactly make the case to swing voters that he’s a dangerous socialist.
2. Attacking him for any purpose encourages Democrats who might otherwise have reservations about him to rally around him.
3. He sets a low bar for consistency and gaffes. Everyone is used to that now. Why should Biden be measured by anyone other than him?

Here’s what a number of prominent figures would say:

1. BERNIE SANDERS: Capitalism. Trump is just the logical outcome of a corrupt system.
2. ELIZABETH WARREN: Capitalists and the regulatory system. The system worked for everyone until Reagan was elected.
3. JOE BIDEN: Trump. Get rid of him and everything will be fine.
4. DONALD TRUMP: Fake news; illegal immigrants; liberals, the deep state.
5. TA-NEHISI COATES: Racism, of course.
6. DAVID BROOKS: Too much individualism.
7. JAY INSLEE: The system’s inability to respond to climate change.
8. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND: Men.

Happy Fathers’ Day, Kirsten!

Steve Bannon sees the thirties as a golden age of nationalism, and wants to bring it back. Bernie Sanders is aware of the analogy, too, but views it as a cautionary tale. In his speech on socialism, he cast himself as a modern-day FDR, fighting oligarchies and the right-wing strong men they use as tools both domestically and abroad. Elect him in 2020, and happy days are here again, it seems.

Is he right? Actually, nothing about his story rings true:

1. Only a Marxist would view Hitler and Mussolini as pawns of business interests.
2. As Tim Cook would be happy to tell you, Trump isn’t a tool of large corporate interests, either.
3. Nor are the grab bag of contemporary strongmen to whom Bernie referred in his speech. Xi works for an oligarchy, all right, but they are Communists, not businessmen. Putin tamed the oligarchs in his country; they work for his interests, not the other way around. MBS is a Peter the Great wannabe trying, in his erratic and despotic way, to free his country from the shackles of Islamic tradition. Duterte is a thug obsessed with crime and drugs; business is not his thing. Orban’s right-wing populism is based on nationalism, not the promotion of Hungarian business interests. And so on.
4. Can you imagine a President Sanders doing his best within the system to prop up the ultra-imperialist Churchill against the Nazis in 1940? Me, neither.
5. While it is true that the GOP portrayed FDR as a socialist, he made it perfectly clear that he wasn’t one, and it is fair to say that most of Bernie’s programs (with the possible exception of Medicare-for-All) were not part of his vision for the country. Sanders is the new Henry Wallace, not FDR.

The bottom line is that Bernie’s speech was a bogus Marxist narrative used for opportunistic purposes, not an accurate description of either America or the rest of the world. It is true that inequality has increased both at home and abroad as a result of globalization and technological change. It is also true that the current wave of right-wing populism in America and Europe is to some extent a reaction to economic failure. It is not true, however, that Trump and the other right-wing populist leaders are simply pawns of business interests, just because Marxist theory says they must be.

My guess is that the tanker attacks were carried out by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Whether they were specifically sanctioned by the government or not is unclear. On the one hand, Rouhani has less control over the Guard than one might think; on the other, the Iranians are past masters at the use of plausible deniability.

In the end, it probably doesn’t matter; Iranians close to the government will be found at fault, and the regime will have to pay the price. But how, exactly?

I predicted years ago that Trump would go to war with Iran, and that a naval issue like this would be the most likely precipitant. I am sticking to my story, although war over this particular incident is not completely inevitable. The real question is whether the Trump administration will cut the grass, go in some way for regime change, or annihilate the country altogether, given that an Iraq-style invasion and occupation is not in the cards.

I think we will start with a fairly robust aerial assault on the Revolutionary Guard, accompanied by a stern warning that any retaliation will result in the use of nukes. Since nuclear threats are now a familiar part of Trump’s diplomatic tool kit, and nothing has happened, the Iranians will probably blow it off. How does Trump respond when they call his bluff? That’s when things get really, really dangerous.

Back in 1997, both China and the liberal democracies of the West could imagine Hong Kong as a useful sort of bridge. For China, it was a source of finance, growth, and information, but far enough away to avoid political contamination. The West, for its part, could imagine Hong Kong as a role model for a liberalizing China. It all made sense.

Today, not so much. There is more freedom in China on a day to day basis than most people realize, but it doesn’t extend to meaningful political participation, and the repression is getting worse, not better. And China doesn’t need Hong Kong any more. It has Shanghai, and its own high tech dreams. The notion of one country and two systems sounds like more of a threat than a promise to the Chinese leadership.

Hong Kong probably won’t die in a hail of PLA bullets. It will continue to exist as an economic hub for China. It just won’t be a point of convergence between China and the West, and the freedoms of liberalism will wither away, sooner rather than later.

Millennials love to moan about their student debts, which, to be sure, can be pretty appalling. Older folks typically respond by asking why they should be required to bail them out for making bad business decisions. Who’s right?

There is plenty of blame to go around here. My thoughts are as follows:

1. There is nothing inherently objectionable in requiring most students to rely on loans rather than grants. In most cases, going to college is still an investment that pays off in the long run, and there is no obvious reason to effectively transfer wealth from people who didn’t go to college, few of whom are affluent, to people who did.
2. The real problems here are that: (a) the economy tanked in the Great Recession, so the job opportunities for millennials were less lucrative than they expected when they borrowed the money; (b) tuition costs have skyrocketed, largely because of increased administrative costs; and (c) there was a degree of outright fraud in some of the solicitations made by for-profit schools.
3. These problems can be resolved without granting debt relief for people in the future. Gen Xers who suffered through the recession of 1992 ultimately profited from the boom of the late 1990’s and are relatively affluent today, so there is still hope for the millennials; tuition costs and job placement issues can be addressed by requiring appropriate disclosures; and there are remedies through the judicial system for fraud.
4. But what should we do about the people who are suffering today? I just can’t bring myself to support some sort of massive, indiscriminate debt relief program. There should be a mechanism based on bankruptcy law to address these issues on an individualized basis. People who were effectively defrauded should be assisted in their efforts to have their debts reduced. Refinancing can be an option in some cases. Reduction in exchange for public service makes sense. But the overall objection to taxpayer funded debt forgiveness still makes sense; student loans are a business investment, and should be treated as such by the government–not as a new form of entitlement.

One of the great paradoxes of American politics is that the Democrats regularly pledge to protect the entitlements of the elderly, who then turn around and vote predominantly for entitlement-hating Republicans. How long can this last?

Not indefinitely. At some point in the fairly near future, millennials are going to become the largest cohort of the Democratic Party, and one of two things is going to happen: either the elderly will start voting in a manner consistent with their economic interests, instead of their conservative values; or the party, with little to lose, will turn against the elderly and renegotiate the terms of the welfare state in favor of younger people at the latter’s insistence.

It won’t happen in 2020, but the choice is inevitable.

Ezra Klein has a lengthy and interesting interview with Warren on Vox.com. When he asked her how she planned to get rid of the filibuster, she responded by saying she could persuade moderate Democratic senators to abolish it by arguing that her policy plans were a key element of her candidacy, and that keeping the filibuster (and thereby killing her plans) would frustrate the clear expressed will of the nation.

If she truly believes that, she’s missing the point. There is a lot of skepticism among Democratic senators about eliminating the filibuster because they know the filibuster would probably prevent a counterrevolution in the future. The risk/reward calculus is the real issue here–for both sides.

And so, if a President Warren really wants to prevail on this point, she will either have to convince the moderates in the Senate that ongoing demographic changes mean the counterrevolution cannot happen in the foreseeable future, or that her plans are so popular and important that running the risk of a catastrophe in, say, 2024 is worth it. My advice? Don’t hold your breath.

Surveys consistently show that millennials are sympathetic to socialism. Do they have a case?

If you define socialism (correctly) as the public ownership of the means of production, and compare the performance of socialist and capitalist economies over the last century, it’s no contest. Socialist countries simply don’t provide their citizens with enough incentives to be productive, and companies that are owned by the public answer to too many masters to be very efficient.

That said, millennials obviously have suffered disproportionately from the effects of the Great Recession, so their complaints about the system have some merit. The real problem with the system, however, has nothing to do with the ownership of the means of production; it is that the current version of the welfare state is skewed towards the protection of the elderly, and has little to offer them. As the boomers age and become even more dependent on handouts from millennials, this problem is going to get even worse.

Bernie Sanders unquestionably has a Marxist frame of reference, but his actual program focuses more on the expansion of the welfare state to younger people than on truly socialist measures. His support consequently comes mostly from millennials. It makes perfect sense.

Elizabeth Warren’s ultimate objective, of course, is to be the Democratic nominee and defeat Trump. In order to do that, she must first dominate her lane, which is also occupied by Bernie Sanders. How can she hurdle the Bernie roadblock?

Personally, I think America will be better off if she is the standard bearer for the left, so here is some unsolicited advice:

1. DON’T BOTHER WITH THE SANDINISTA STUFF: At some point, either Trump or the more centrist candidates are going to start talking about Bernie’s embarrassing lefty past in earnest, but Warren should avoid that, because Bernie’s millennial supporters couldn’t care less.
2. CAPITALIST RHETORIC, BUT SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PLANS: Older voters aren’t comfortable with Bernie’s “socialism.” Make the point over and over again about being a capitalist reformer, while proposing new social programs that will appeal to millennials.
3. OUTFLANK BERNIE TO THE LEFT, WHERE POSSIBLE: If you want to win over Bernie’s core voters, you have to outbid him. For purposes of the primaries, it doesn’t matter that these proposals are never going to become law; it’s the intent that counts. That is the genius of the unconstitutional and unworkable wealth tax proposal.
4. KEEP THINGS PUNCHY AND SIMPLE: It will be essential to explain complex plans in simple terms at the debates.

You may have observed that Warren is already doing most or all of these things. I agree; that’s why she’s climbing slowly in the polls.

It seems inevitable that the Conservative electorate will have to choose between Boris Johnson and a softer Brexit proponent running as a unity candidate. Boris will win that one easily. Then what?

As I noted in a previous post, Remainer MPs within the party will have a difficult choice. Most will swallow their principles and support Boris due to personal ambition and fear of Corbyn. Older MPs with no aspirations probably won’t. The government may or may not survive. If it doesn’t, there will be a general election. That’s when things really start happening.

Johnson is a skilled campaigner. The Brexit Party has no reason to exist as long as he speaks for the Conservatives. As a result, the Conservatives will sweep the Leave vote. The Remain vote will actually be larger, but will be split among several parties, as most voters will not trust Corbyn’s belated promise of a second referendum. The outcome? The Conservatives win a crushing victory, the Liberal Democrats finish second, and Labour evolves into a small, hard left party with a few MPs from decaying industrial hinterlands.

Oh, and the UK ultimately leaves without a deal in spite of the clear wishes of a majority of the electorate and the current Parliament. That is a subject for another day.

Imagine that you are Sohrab Ahmari, and you are determined to impose your “order and orthodoxy” on hundreds of millions of American unbelievers. It’s a daunting task, to be sure. How would you do it?

You have some things going for you. First of all, you have Trump. Admittedly, he’s far from a perfect instrument; he’s lazy, egotistical, and corrupt, just to name a few undesirable characteristics. What you want is a Franco, and he’s far from that. Still, he has a devoted following and authoritarian leanings. He will do for now.

You also know that history shows that a ruthless, determined minority can get its way in spite of the majority’s wishes, and that you have plenty of fellow travelers who will support you if the alternative is even worse. With that in mind, here’s how it could be done:

1. Trump starts a foreign war. This is most likely against Iran, but the enemy doesn’t matter that much. The war has to be ongoing to provide the legal basis for the rest of the program.
2. Trump uses the war, and Civil War precedents, to crack down on First Amendment rights. Given his enthusiasm for executive power, Barr is firmly with him on this. The internet is censored, and wartime controls are imposed on print and broadcast media. These reinterpretations of First Amendment jurisprudence are challenged in the courts, of course, and lower courts invalidate them. The Trump Supreme Court, however, ultimately determines that it must defer to the executive even in the instance of bogus “emergencies,” so the restrictions are upheld.
3. Barr uses his powers to eliminate all opposition to Trump. Right-wing media are permitted to broadcast the administration’s views 24/7. War opponents are regularly denounced as traitors by Fox News.
4. New voter suppression measures are introduced, and are also upheld by the Supreme Court.
5. Law enforcement and the military are purged and politicized. Trump loyalists are, of course, put in charge.
6. Blue states resist. Martial law is imposed. Troops are sent to restore “order” in LA and New York.
7. With this system in place, the national election is a formality. In the meantime, Fox News and other right-wing media are encouraging state and local governments to take complementary action against known Trump opponents. Groups of right-wing thugs are created to take the law into their own hands. They do.
8. And there you have it! Liberal democracy is now dead in America. And all because of abortion and gay pride parades. Sad, isn’t it?

It isn’t just Bibi; after all, the voters put him there. It is the Israeli public that isn’t interested in making peace. Why?

For the simple and logical reason that making peace with the Palestinians is a much riskier proposition under today’s circumstances than not making peace. Given the existence of the wall, the vast imbalance of economic and military power, and the Arab world’s indifference to the plight of the Palestinians, the Israelis can reasonably view the latter as nothing more than a minor, chronic nuisance. Signing a peace agreement, on the other hand, would almost certainly result in a low level civil war with settler groups and their allies, along with some political assassinations. In addition, there would be no complete assurances that the new Palestinian state would uphold the terms of the treaty. Why, then, should Israel even try to make peace?

Because conditions can change. All it will take is a revolution in Jordan, Egypt, or both, and the calculus will become totally different. By then, it will be too late.

We’re losing the culture war, cries Sohrab Ahmari, an Iranian expat turned reactionary Catholic. He knows who is at fault: not just the godless left, but the wimpy GOP establishment that believes in limited government, individual rights, and a free market in ideas. Trying to convert the heathen is a waste of time; we need to engage in smashmouth politics to win the day. According to Torquemada, er, Ahmari, social conservatives should use power to “enforce our order and our orthodoxy.”

To use my terminology, Ahmari is calling for the Reactionary faction of the GOP to impose its will on the other three factions, and on America as a whole. Conservative reactions have been strong, but mixed. Ross Douthat minimizes his apocalyptic language and contends Ahmari only wants to renegotiate the deal between economic liberals and social conservatives. Rich Lowry asks, perfectly reasonably, how a small minority of the country is going to impose its will on the rest. Other conservatives, however, have agreed with Ahmari. One in particular apparently said (this is a paraphrase) that if we don’t fight the culture war to the death, the left will be sending us to death camps.

These are the depths to which we have been reduced; the extreme right equates left-wing Twitter mobs and gay pride parades with gas chambers. That’s pathetic, but it gives you some idea of the intensity of the feeling on the other side. The fact is that, if you think you’re losing the culture war, you have four options: (a) to redouble your efforts to win it (what I have called the “Patrick Option”); (b) to withdraw from the world and hope for better times in the future (the “Benedict Option”); (c) to use politics and the legal system to carve out “safe spaces” from the encroachments of evil seculars; or (d) to use extralegal methods, including violence where necessary, to enforce traditional values. There is a word for (d): fascism.

Make no mistake–Torquemada, er, Ahmari, is advocating (d). The wimpiness of the response from the establishment right is a warning that we can’t rely on them to fight for the current system. More on that tomorrow.