Cromwell

The polls that I have seen show Remain at about 50 percent and the two Brexit alternatives (no deal and the May deal) at about 25 percent. Those numbers clearly suggest that the May deal will fail again when it comes up for a vote next week, although the margin may not be quite as daunting. Parliament will probably follow up by directing her to seek an extension, but that will only be possible with the consent of the EU. What will the EU do?

I think it will depend on the margin of defeat. If it appears that May has a plausible shot at winning in a few months, an extension would make sense, and is probably assured. If not, what’s the point? There aren’t going to be any further meaningful negotiations. If the British government can’t decide what it wants, the EU might as well keep the hard deadline and see what happens.

India isn’t an aggressive mercantilist state, like China, but it is thoroughly protectionist. As a result, you could make a case for Trump’s decision to increase tariffs on Indian goods if you view the issue in narrowly economic terms.

But to do that is borderline insane. India has immense geopolitical significance. It has to be the centerpiece of any effort to balance the growing Chinese dominance of the Far East. Furthermore, it is teetering on the verge of war with Pakistan, which is effectively evolving into a Chinese client state. Is this really the time to send the “America First, and everyone else sucks” message to the Indians?

This is yet another example of how the nationalist and internationalist strains of Trumpist/Bannonist thought can’t be reconciled. The results will be awful.

CLs like Bret Stephens and Veronique de Rugy are purists. They know, and they feel in their bones, that economic growth is only really possible with limited government. The free market always knows best; the government, on the other hand, knows nothing. Let the big dog off his leash and watch him eat!

China, of course, is a rebuttal to the CLs. You can hardly tout it as a shining example of limited government, and yet it grows at over 6 percent per year. It shouldn’t exist, according to the CLs, and yet it indubitably does. How can this be explained?

Just you wait–China is doomed, they say. Don’t pay any attention to all of that growth; China will implode, just as the Soviet Union did. It has to. Adam Smith says so.

To which I say: don’t hold your breath. China isn’t going away, any more than South Korea and Japan, neither of which is exactly a laissez-faire paradise, will in the foreseeable future.

Michael Bloomberg has decided not to split the Democratic Party by running for president. On social and cultural issues, his views are impeccably liberal. He has promised to spend a very large amount of his own money to defeat Trump and advance causes that are near and dear to the hearts of liberals. He’s a hero, right?

Not so fast! If you’re on the realo or the identity side of the graph, you will absolutely welcome his support against Trump and his rancid ideology. However, if you’re in the class/fundi quadrant, like Bernie Sanders, you view Bloomberg (well-meaning or not) as the enemy, because he is an obstacle to the “revolution.” And it is the “revolution” that is the objective here, not just defeating Trump.

This is the other side of the coin from the reactionary worker question. The Democrats will do best in 2020 if they finesse the issue, accept assistance from everyone who offers it, and avoid making an explicit choice. That said, if they succeed in winning power, the decision will be staring them in the face after they take office, and this time, they won’t be able to duck it.

Hillary Clinton called them “deplorables;” they are reactionary workers who vote against their economic interests for reasons based on nostalgia, culture, or racism. Every Democratic candidate will need a strategy to deal with them. Are they Trump accomplices or victims?

If you’re running a campaign based on class, the answer is simple–they’re dupes of a faux populist and his billionaire friends. If you can just get them to see where their interests really lie, they will rise up against Wall Street and put you in the White House. Your whole campaign is based on that premise. If you’re an identity politician, however, you may well choose to write off the reactionary workers and ally yourself with, among others, white people who are wealthy, but socially liberal.

The reality of the situation is that the idea of the reactionary as a dupe of the right-wing wealthy is largely a convenient fiction. That said, there are a few that could be flipped, and it is worth the effort to do so.

I’ve read three interesting columns addressing some of the same subjects over the last 24 hours:

1. An interview with Brad DeLong on Vox.com in which DeLong argues that the center-left should guide and support the left, not lead it, because there is no responsible center-right partner among the Republicans with whom to work to get things done.
2. A column by Tim Wu in the NYT in which the author takes the position that Americans are actually united in support of a number of leftist economic positions, but that “industry groups” and “experts” are frustrating their will.
3. A column by Ross Douthat in the NYT which argues that the center-left lost its influence by capitulating to the left on social and cultural influences.

Are any of them right? Not exactly, although DeLong is closest. Here are my reactions:

1. No, the center-left is not dead, at least among the electorate. The results of the 2018 election prove that, as does Biden’s current position in the polls.
2. Douthat is correct when he points out that the Democratic Party as a whole has moved left on social issues, and that the drift probably created more antagonism with the Reactionary faction of the GOP. Just as the GOP undervalues, from its perspective, the cuts in discretionary spending that have occurred over the last several years, the Democrats take their victories on social issues for granted, and tend to forget how much they inflame the right. The suggestion, however, that the center-left would have found more support among the public, and more cooperative partners among the GOP, conflicts with the facts. Obama didn’t support gay marriage in 2009, and nobody had heard of #MeToo. How much GOP support was there for any of his policy initiatives?
3. Wu’s observations about public support for leftist economics are accurate, but meaningless, because many of the people who take these positions are reactionaries who vote for the GOP for racial and cultural reasons. It is these values voters, not “experts” or “donors” or some other dark forces, that block the path of higher taxes for the rich and more social spending, because their deal with the PBPs on tax cuts and welfare spending is the foundation of the current GOP.
4. DeLong correctly notes that Obama actually advocated positions on health care and the environment that had been espoused by GOP leaders in prior years, and that the GOP opposed them for opportunistic reasons. What he doesn’t seem to acknowledge, however, is that Obama actually accomplished quite a lot of the center-left agenda while in office. In a lot of ways, the center-left agenda is still the status quo.
5. DeLong has a point about the lack of a responsible center-right partner in today’s world. That could change, however, if the Democrats demolish Trumpism in 2020. Otherwise, significant change will have to wait on the “revolution” and the abolition of the filibuster. We’ll see.

There was a rare bipartisan consensus, and even something of an international one, that China has been a bad actor on trade issues. As a result, while his tactics were completely inept and his mercantilist premises ridiculous, you could at least give Trump credit for good intentions in launching the trade war.

The question was always whether he would push the Chinese hard enough to require real systemic changes, or back off and accept a shiny object as a “win.” It seems reasonably clear at this point that he’s going for the shiny object, just as he did with NAFTA. The question then is, what’s next for Tariff Man?

Trump has always made it clear that he considers the Europeans, and the Germans in particular, to be just as bad as the Chinese. It is not difficult to imagine him slapping tariffs on “European” (whatever that means in today’s world) cars for totally specious reasons. If he does, he will be putting another nail in the coffin of US-EU relations AND destroying any hopes of future cooperation on trade issues against China.

Like Putin before him, Xi will be thrilled.

You can divide the Democratic candidates into progressives and moderates, or fundis and realos, or white and minority, or fighters and healers. In the final analysis, what may matter more than anything else is the split between mild and hot and spicy–the chicken wing test.

Hot and spicy candidates stand out as a result of the way they look or what they say. Mild candidates don’t; their platforms typically involve bringing divergent groups together to work for a common purpose.

Kamala Harris is hot and spicy. Joe Biden would be mild, as would Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar. Elizabeth Warren wants to be hot and spicy, but she tries too hard, and it doesn’t come off–at least not yet. Bernie Sanders? I’ll analyze him in a future Sandersday post.

What will the electorate want in a race against the hot and spicy Donald Trump? My guess is a second hot and spicy choice, but that remains to be seen.

TO: PRESIDENT PUTIN

FROM: THE NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM

RE: UKRAINE

You have been reluctant to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine up until now. There are obviously good reasons for that. It is worth noting, however, that Ukraine is unlike, say, Georgia or Afghanistan: the land is flat and ideal for tanks, not guerrilla warfare; we essentially have the country surrounded; and there are at least a few local politicians we could use to do our bidding after we leave.

Just saying. That decision is up to you. The purpose of this memo is to point out that you have a window of approximately a year in which to invade if you want to avoid the worst possible international consequences. America is politically divided, but Trump is your friend, and he is still the commander-in-chief; if you wait until 2020, you will be creating a major campaign issue that would work in favor of the Democrats. The EU is currently rudderless; Merkel is leaving, but is still there, while the UK is on its way out, period. It is likely that the vacuum will be filled in some way by next year.

The bottom line is that the best course may well be to continue to play the long game and hope Ukraine ultimately implodes. It could still happen, and the more passive approach is certainly less risky. If you feel the need to make your mark on history and bolster your popularity at home, however, this might be your best chance.

TO: PRESIDENT PUTIN

FROM: YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM

RE: THE AMERICAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN

You asked us to evaluate the success or failure of our disinformation campaign and to make recommendations for its future. Here are our observations:

1. In a sense, the 2016 campaign was successful beyond our wildest dreams. For the price of a few million rubles, we succeeded in electing a president who might as well be one of our agents, assuming he isn’t actually one already. (You know more about that than we do). Trump is destroying the credibility of American democracy both at home and abroad and threatening the continuing existence of NATO. He openly despises the EU and wants to split it apart, just as you do. He also openly sucks up to you. The Republicans love you, and the Democrats are convinced you are an invincible, evil genius. Who could possibly ask for more?
2. The problem is that, somehow, he frequently doesn’t speak for his own government, so he hasn’t succeeded in lifting the Ukraine sanctions, although no one doubts he would if he could. He’s also very capricious, and he views every human interaction as a test of his manhood, which makes him potentially dangerous. Finally, the Democrats fear and hate you, so if they win in 2020, they’re going to make our lives as difficult and unpleasant as possible. The backlash may not justify the clear temporary gains we have enjoyed over the last two years.
3. While nothing in American politics is inevitable, you had better assume that the Democrats will prevail in 2020. That means you have a brief window this year in which you could seriously consider taking drastic action in Ukraine without worrying too much about meaningful retaliation from NATO. We’ll have more to say about that in a memo tomorrow.
4. As to how you should proceed in the 2020 elections, we recommend that you provide support through social media to both Trump and Bernie Sanders. Like Julian Assange, Bernie actually agrees with a lot of your critique about the abuse of American power. If he were to be elected, you would have to listen to lots of sermons about international law, but he wouldn’t actually do anything to stop you in Ukraine or anywhere else. He would be even more ineffectual than the leadership of the EU.

I actually wrote this before the allegations in the McCabe book went public.

TAKE THE OIL! TAKE THE OIL! TAKE THE OIL!

Oh, the government there is frightful.

But the rebels sound delightful.

So we just have to get embroiled.

Take the oil! Take the oil! Take the oil!

______________

Oil prices will soon be dropping.

And the fighting will be stopping.

And Americans will be spoiled.

Take the oil! Take the oil! Take the oil!

_________________

When we finally say good night

To another repressive regime

To its resources we’ll hold tight.

You know that it’s my secret dream.

______________

Oh, the people down there are dying

The survivors are good-byeing.

Who cares if my hands are soiled?

Take the oil! Take the oil! Take the oil!

I’ve never interviewed Bernie Sanders, and I probably never will. But if I did, it would go something like this:

C: Good morning! Thanks for meeting me.

S: I always look forward to an opportunity to get the word out.

C: I have to warn you–I’ve defended you against people who blame you for Clinton’s loss in 2016, and I have no issues with you personally, but I’ve been very critical of some of your policy proposals.

S: I’m a big boy. I can take it.

C: We don’t have much time, so I’m going to focus on matters of general political philosophy, and particularly on your concept of the “revolution.”

S: OK.

C: It seems to me that there are two prongs to the “revolution.” The first one is to reduce inequality. You propose to do this by taxing the rich and regulating their activities, while substantially increasing the size and scope of the welfare state for the benefit of the less powerful.

S: That’s accurate.

C: The second prong is a tactical one: you plan to bring about the “revolution” by expanding the base of the Democratic Party by flipping the votes of struggling white workers and by getting poor people who haven’t been involved in the process to vote.

S: That’s part of it, too.

C: Let me start by asking some questions about the first prong. You have called yourself a socialist, but what you’re calling for isn’t socialism by the textbook definition, because you aren’t proposing widespread nationalizations. Do you agree?

S: Yes. Call it socialism for the 21st century, if you like.

C: Why call it socialism at all? In my experience, the word scares the crap out of most Americans, especially the elderly.

S: I’m just trying to be honest. Historically, I’ve always been to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and I need a term to express that. Anyway, younger people aren’t afraid of the term, and they’re my base.

C: As we both know, older people vote at much higher levels than younger people. Do you really think you can win an election without their support?

S: When they understand my program better, they’ll figure out it’s a much better deal for them then the status quo. It’s just a question of getting the word out.

C: But you understand that an elderly person probably isn’t going to be enthused about changes to the system that are so dramatic that they can be called a “revolution.” They just want to hang on to what they’ve got.

S: Again, I’m offering them a better deal. They’ll go for it if they understand it.

C: Elizabeth Warren is as determined to reduce inequality as you are, and some of her measures are arguably to the left of yours, but she’s careful not to call herself a socialist. How do you feel about that?

S: I think it’s fair to say that Elizabeth and I are fellow travelers in a lot of ways. If she chooses to call herself a capitalist for tactical reasons, that’s up to her. It’s just a word. It’s the policies themselves that really matter.

C: How would you feel if the “revolution” succeeded, but with a different leader?

S: I would be fine with that. Trump notwithstanding, it’s not about ego. It’s about doing what’s right for the American people.

C: Do you think you can get the “revolution” through Congress without abolishing the filibuster?

S: I don’t know. We’re obviously focused on winning the current election. If we do a good enough job, the issue will never come up. If it does come up, I’ll deal with that later.

C: What would you offer the Republicans in order to abolish the filibuster?

S: Again, that’s too speculative. I won’t worry about that unless and until I have to.

C: Let’s move on to the second prong. How do you plan to flip the white workers?

S: By appealing to their self-interest, obviously. The system is screwing them over. We need to change that.

C: But a large number of them are values voters who don’t vote their strict economic self-interest. How do you overcome that?

S: You just have to work hard and stay on message. There’s nothing else to be done.

C: How do you get an African-American who is being hassled by a racist cop to agree that the cop is his friend, and a Wall Street banker is his real enemy? That’s the crux of the issue.

S: Again, you just have to focus on the real issues and stay on message.

C: In some ways, you’re in the position of a union organizer around the end of the nineteenth century, trying to keep different ethnic factions united around an economic message.

S: That sounds about right.

C: What historical evidence can you rely on to support the notion that you can win the election by ignoring swing voters and engaging in class warfare? It didn’t work for you in 2016, even within the Democratic Party.

S: The closest thing would be FDR, obviously.

C: But he was dealing with a national economic emergency. We have 4 percent unemployment today. How can you possibly reach the same result?

S: I’m an optimist. You have to be in my business, particularly if you believe in the things I do.

C: Would you agree that the Democratic Party has always had a large identity politics component?

S: Sure. I don’t disagree with that. I recognize that women, and African-Americans, and other groups have gotten a raw deal in this country. I have a history of standing with them in their fight for justice. I understand perfectly that identity is important to a large part of the party. I just don’t want it to overwhelm the economic message. Identity issues are tied in with the overall question of equality. That’s what I’m trying to deal with.

C: If I were in your position, I would be doing two things to try to heal the identity/class split in the Democratic Party. First, I would be working really hard to make the party more tolerant on identity issues like guns and religion that resonate with the white workers that you need for the “revolution”. Second, I would be out evangelizing in every state, including the deep red states, instead of running up the score with the base in blue states. I don’t see the evidence that you’re doing that.

S: You don’t see everything we’re doing. It’s a movement, and it goes beyond me. You see it in the teacher strikes in the red states, for example.

C: Thank you for your time.

Tomorrow, I will be bringing back a feature from the 2016 campaign–“Sandersday!” Yes, we’ll be feeling the Bern every Saturday until his campaign ends or I run out of ideas, whichever happens first. We’ll start with a fake interview of completely epic proportions. Just you see.

Based on a number of polls, including one which shows that the socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant represents only about five percent of the electorate, Paul Krugman argues that the Democrats can support extremely progressive legislation without fear of losing in 2020. Is he right?

No, for several reasons:

1. POLLS CAN BE WRONG: Just ask President Hillary Clinton.
2. THE FINDINGS OF POLLS DEPEND ON THE QUESTION ASKED: Significant policy questions inevitably come with tradeoffs that frequently aren’t reflected in the poll questions.
3. POLLS CAN TAKE ISSUES OUT OF CONTEXT: For example, there are plenty of members of the Reactionary faction of the GOP who would, in isolation, support higher taxes on the wealthy. These people are primarily values voters who aren’t going to support Bernie Sanders even if they agree on fiscal issues.
4. POLLS DON’T USUALLY REFLECT THE WORKINGS OF OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM: If 100 percent of the voters in California support single-payer, how does that help you win Florida?

The fact is that the socially liberal/economically conservative quadrant, regardless of its relatively small size, consists of swing voters that the Democrats need to win in 2020. Otherwise, there would be no uproar about a potential Howie Starbucks candidacy.

Imagine that you are a white male industrial worker in, say, Wisconsin. Your ancestors immigrated here after the Civil War. No one in your family ever owned slaves. You personally, to your knowledge, have never mistreated an African-American, and you certainly don’t consider yourself a racist.

Your wages have remained stagnant for years in the face of globalization and technological change. You decided to vote for Trump in 2016, even though you had reservations about him, because you didn’t like Hillary Clinton’s baggage, and because you thought he might bring a different approach to things that could help you in the future. You have been disillusioned by his endless scandals and his regressive tax cut. You would consequently prefer to vote for a Democrat in 2020, if possible.

The problem is that the nominee is supporting reparations. You aren’t woke enough, she says. You don’t seem to understand that most of what little you own is attributable to “white privilege,” not your own hard work and your parents’ sacrifices. It’s time that you paid up and apologized for your ignorance and your sins against African-Americans. Then, and only then, will you be viewed as a fully acceptable member of the community.

It isn’t just reactionaries and bigots who are going to be pissed off if they hear this message in 2020. If the Democrats want to turn off a huge segment of the population that they need to win the election, there is no better way to do it than to support reparations.