Cromwell

Twelve GOP senators voted with all of the Democrats to overturn Trump’s use of emergency powers to build the wall. This is, of course, being cited as evidence that the GOP is willing to break with Trump and provide appropriate congressional oversight under limited circumstances. Is that correct?

Maybe I’m just a glass half empty guy, but I don’t see it. To me, the story here is that 41 GOP senators voted with Trump knowing perfectly well that the “emergency” was bogus and that any decision to permit the use of emergency powers would be a dangerous precedent, from their perspective, in the hands of a Democratic president. If a large majority of the GOP senators will vote for him on that, when would they break with him? Is an impeachment conviction under even extreme circumstances plausible? Would they stop him if he tried to shut down the internet, cancel the election, and send his opponents to Gitmo?

Not likely. They would be too fearful of the base and Fox News. If we ever have to rely on the GOP to protect our civil rights, we’re in deep trouble.

The woman called Queen of the May

Insists upon having her way.

They’re voting again.

Will the Commons give in?

Or will Parliament finally say nay?

Some pundits are critical of the DNC’s decision to refuse to let Fox host a debate, arguing that Fox has a large audience that the Democrats need to reach, and that the network’s news section is professional and independent. Are they right?

No, because there is plenty of evidence that Fox as a whole operates as an arm of the Trump administration, so the DNC would be giving Donald Trump an opportunity to pick his opponent.

Imagine, if you will, that Trump calls Rupert Murdoch the night before the debate and tells him that he wants to run against, say, Elizabeth Warren. He asks Murdoch to make sure that his reporters ask Warren softball questions during the debate. Are you confident that Murdoch ignores him, or that Chris Wallace disobeys orders and treats everyone equally?

Me, neither.

A left-wing media watchdog group has uncovered audio tapes of Tucker Carlson making misogynist, racist, and other colorfully stupid remarks during a radio show hosted by a shock jock named Bubba the Love Sponge about ten years ago. Far from apologizing, and in true Trumpian form, Carlson chose to lash out at the “outrage machine” and said he would never bow to “the mob.” Fox News, it seems, has his back.

My reactions?

1. No one who goes on a show with a shock jock intends to engage in a serious conversation. I don’t doubt for a minute that Carlson was just being provocative in an effort to entertain the guy’s listeners. You might as well hold a stand-up comedian to the letter of his routine.
2. That said, it is difficult to take Carlson’s otherwise valid complaints about the “outrage machine” seriously, because that is the entire purpose of Fox News. It is the heart of their business plan. Triggering and owning libs with outrageously stupid views is the way they win and keep viewers. Carlson does it himself. Is it only an “outrage machine” when it works against him?

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

It appears that it has become fashionable for the Democrats to make proposals for new, wildly expensive programs without making any effort to identify a plausible funding source. That is a bit like going to a Lexus dealership and announcing you’re going to buy a car with no credit and no money in your pocket, or serving dessert before the vegetables. It makes no sense in the real world. You might as well try to solve a one-sided equation.

But, you say, making unrealistic promises is a good way to fire up the base and win elections. The hard part can always be dealt with later. Look at Brexit, or how the GOP dealt with Obamacare replacement!

Exactly! Look at them now!

So, the May deal was defeated by an overwhelming margin again, Corbyn demanded a general election rather than a second referendum again, and there was much handwringing all around again. We’ve all seen that movie before.

What happens next? The Commons will reject no deal; the vote will not be close. Then there will be a vote for further delay, but no general election, and no referendum. May will interpret that to mean she should engage in more pantomime negotiations and then bring her plan back for one last vote. Will the EU agree to that kind of scenario? I doubt it. I don’t think any meaningful extension will be granted in the absence of a realistic plan for the future.

The GOP ran furiously against Obamacare in the 2012 and 2016 elections. They attacked its perceived flaws from every possible angle, including from the left. They promised a new system that would cover more people and provide better coverage at a lower price. The nature of the new system, however, was never spelled out during the campaigns.

Once in power, Trump and the Republicans found they had no idea how to meet their conflicting promises, particularly since their hidden agenda was actually to make health insurance less, and not more, readily available. The Senate took a series of votes on a variety of different schemes, all of which would have made the public worse off than under Obamacare. All of them failed, because, in the final analysis, not enough senators were willing to vote for something that reduced the number of insured.

Sounds a bit like Brexit, no? Brexit was ridiculously oversold by its proponents, who are now offering a choice between becoming an EU vassal state or economic chaos. The correct answer is none of the above.

Man-made climate change is real, and a genuine threat to our country, according to Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski in a Saturday WaPo op-ed. Our states are already feeling its effects, and we’re determined to do something about it. Not that ridiculous Green New Deal, of course–something reasonable. We don’t know what it is yet, but we’ll be listening to scientists, and it’ll be great. Trust us. Trust us.

Naturally, I reacted to that with a mixture of scorn and laughter. And yet, it may be meaningful in ways that M & M do not intend. Here’s my analysis:

1. You might think that they are in similar positions with regard to fossil fuels and climate change, but they aren’t. West Virginia isn’t feeling any special effects of climate change, but coal mining there is more nostalgia than reality. On the other hand, Alaska is basically Saudi Arabia with snow, but it genuinely is feeling the impacts of climate change; critical infrastructure is cracking as the permafrost melts, coastal areas are flooding, and polar bears are starting to hang out in areas where they are unwelcome. Murkowski is going to need federal help to deal with those problems (which, of course, are largely created by the burning of Alaskan oil).
2. Once you concede that climate change is real, and that scientists are not charlatans, it will be difficult to keep the discussion contained. At a minimum, it will be embarrassing to Trump, and should generate lots of interesting questions during the 2020 campaign.
3. My guess is that M & M’s “solution” will be to ask for lots of money for their respective states for job training, infrastructure protection, and investments in speculative technology to create, among other things, “clean coal.” If everyone else in Congress jumps on this train, you will at least have the embryo of a program to adapt to climate change up front, rather than appropriating huge amounts of money to deal with disasters after the fact. It’s not even close to a real solution, but it would be better than what we have right now.

Just as the mythical King Midas turned everything he touched to gold, Donald Trump turns everything he touches to . . . fertilizer. He discredits everything he discusses, including:

1. Liberal democracy;
2. The judicial system;
3. The FBI;
4. The CIA;
5. The media;
6. Our foreign alliances;
7. Evangelical religion;
8. The NFL; and
9. Golf.

He doesn’t have any respect for anything except his own ego. There is no room in his world for anything but him. If you had to pick one reason, among so many, why he has to go, you could do a lot worse than that one.

Theresa May lost her party’s majority at the last general election by running an uninspired campaign. She botched the Brexit negotiations by, among other things, failing to identify a viable position before invoking Article 50. She said no deal was better than a bad deal, ultimately made a bad deal, and then told the country her bad deal was better than no deal. Her deal was defeated by a huge margin in the House of Commons. She responded by pretending to negotiate something different with the EU, while actually trying to run out the clock. Tomorrow, it is almost certain that her deal will be defeated by a very large margin again.

In spite of this miserable record, when the dust settles, she will still be the PM. How can that possibly be? BECAUSE ALL OF THE PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ARE EVEN WORSE.

That’s all you need to know about the state of UK politics today.

“This is an emergency, damn it!” screams the headline of a Vox article written by a man named David Roberts. We’re already dealing with the environmental equivalent of World War II, and we’re losing. The Republicans won’t help; bipartisan action is impossible. And so, the only possible solution is “people power;” inspire millennials with a vision of forceful action, throw in some “socialism” to resolve their economic issues, and the Republicans will drown in a blue/green tidal wave. Otherwise, we’re all basically doomed.

It’s the “revolution,” with polar bears substituting for Bernie Sanders.

Based on the science, Roberts has a case. The problem, of course, is that the weather here was perfectly pleasant yesterday. It doesn’t feel like an emergency. There is no meteorological equivalent of Pearl Harbor. And so, by my estimate, 30 percent of the American public rejects the entire notion of climate change, while 65 percent view it as a serious problem, but one that is less urgent than, say, health care costs or cheap Chinese imports. That leaves about 5 percent of the population to engineer the green “revolution.”

Washington’s rejection of a carbon tax suggests that 5 percent simply isn’t enough “people power” to win elections in a blue state, let alone the country as a whole. If Mr. Roberts thinks the green “revolution” is essential for our survival, he needs to stop wasting his time writing explainers for left-leaning Vox readers and take his message to old people in mobile home parks who are terrified of socialism and who, unlike most younger people, actually vote.

Paul Krugman suggests a three-pronged approach to paying for new Democratic programs: borrow at the current low interest rates for investments with a relatively high rate of return; tax the wealthy to pay for new, fairly small-bore social programs; and create new, broad-based taxes to pay for massive expansions of the welfare state, such as Medicare-for-All. Does that make conceptual sense?

Yes, but I have questions about some GND “investments.” To the extent that these expenditures result in clear efficiencies, and thus generate a predictable rate of return, they aren’t a problem. Some expenditures, however, are only intended to improve the quality of life for everyone over the long run. Some may fail entirely. You can reasonably expect investors to demand higher interest rates for securities intended to finance these kinds of programs. That could present some issues for the economy as a whole down the road.

GND advocates would say that GND bonds should be viewed as the equivalent of war bonds, which offered relatively low interest rates. The problem with this argument is that the public in general does not view climate change as a reasonable analogy to World War II. More on that in a subsequent post.

And so, the cast of characters is pretty well set at this point. The notable exceptions, of course, are Beto and Biden, both of whom are expected to run. How do they stack up against each other?

In a lot of ways, they are polar opposites. Biden probably has suits that are older than Beto. He couldn’t possibly be more qualified; that is a bona fide question with Beto, who has no meaningful administrative experience at a level higher than a small city council. On the other hand, Beto is a born campaigner, with charisma to burn; Biden’s previous presidential campaigns resulted in ignominious failures, and it is unlikely that he has improved with age.

The surprising thing, however, is that they are relatively similar from an ideological perspective. Just because Beto has a strong appeal to young people doesn’t mean he’s a Sanders-style leftist. He’s proof of my argument that you can be colorful and successful without making lots of ridiculous promises you can’t keep, particularly when such an obvious and vulnerable foil resides in the White House.

It’s not hard to imagine Biden agreeing to serve as a transitional figure for a single term with Beto as his running mate (the Killer B ticket?) and presumed heir. I’m not saying that will happen, but it definitely could, and it would be fine with me.

No, in spite of appearances, this is not an ad for KFC.

Say what you want about Bernie Sanders, he knows exactly who he is and what he believes. He panders less than most of his opponents. If you ask him a question, he will probably give you a straight answer. If you don’t like the answer, that’s your problem, not his.

That’s why he stands out among the other Democratic candidates, and why you can call him hot and spicy even though he’s an old white guy and a known commodity.

He was the right-wing leader of one of the world’s greatest democracies. A nationalist to the core, his loathing of Muslims was the key to his electoral success.

He came to office promising to cut taxes and regulations, to protect his country from the Chinese, and to secure the border. He had mixed success, and his prospects for re-election were uncertain.

Is it Trump or Modi? You decide.