Cromwell

The country’s right-wing government was exhausted, dispirited, directionless, and divided. Under normal circumstances, it would have been replaced by the opposition. The entire ruling party, however, was united in its desire to keep out the left, which had turned strongly towards socialism. And so the government staggered on, even in the face of looming disaster, for want of an acceptable alternative.

Is it the UK in 2019 or the US in 2020? Time will tell.

Amy Klobuchar is a nasty boss. Joe Biden didn’t believe Anita Hill. Cory Booker is far too fond of charter schools. Elizabeth Warren offended Native Americans. Bernie Sanders’ staff engaged in sexual harassment. Kamala Harris wasn’t always a perfectly progressive prosecutor. And so on.

There are no perfect candidates. Anyone with the requisite experience to be president has a record that can be used against him (or her). What’s important here, particularly during the debates, is to keep the focus on determining who is the best candidate to beat Trump and run the country, not the one responsible for the fewest heresies against the current party orthodoxy, which is very different than it was even ten years ago. Will that happen? Based on the dynamics of debates and the status of the race to date, I have my doubts.

I thought Graham Parker would be a big star back in the seventies, but it didn’t happen, even though, unlike some of his contemporaries, everyone liked him personally. There were a number of reasons for that, but the biggest one was his songwriting–it was good, but not quite good enough.

(That said, Parker is the author of my favorite first line of a pop song: “The Mona Lisa’s sister doesn’t smile.” Runner-up: “When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school.”)

“Cloud Symbols” is consistent with the rest of Parker’s career. It features more horns than guitars, and sounds somewhat similar (at least to me) to some of his early records, most notably “Heat Treatment.” It’s pleasant enough, but nothing in it is memorable. I listened to it a few times and put it away, probably forever.

Of the five old guy CDs I bought over the last two months, “Cloud Symbols” is easily the least interesting. With that, my music mini-series comes to an end.

Whether she was standing next to Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton was always the adult in the room. Don’t waste your vote on people selling irresponsible or impossible dreams, she would say. Vote for someone who knew what was possible, and would work tirelessly to deliver it.

If she had prevailed in 2016, we wouldn’t be having any discussions about socialism. Trump’s election freed the Democrats to dream, partly because he made the outlandish normal without paying much of a price for it, and partly because his tax cut proved (again!) that the GOP didn’t really care about deficits. And so, today, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is pushing programs that would blow up the deficit and interest rates and have no chance of becoming reality in the absence of the long-awaited, never-arriving “revolution.”

It’s fine to dream as long as your dreams don’t turn off swing voters and cost you the election. When it is all said and done, America will crash if it isn’t run by adults, and the Republicans steadfastly refuse to grow up, so the Democratic nominee is our only hope.

Donald Trump insists that Huawei is an agent of the Chinese government. Huawei indignantly denies it. Who’s right?

Let’s put it this way: if Huawei is not effectively an arm of the Chinese state, why did the Chinese government react as strongly as it did to Meng’s arrest, and why was Chinese public opinion so inflamed? In the final analysis, Chinese companies the size of Huawei, regardless of who owns them, cannot operate without the support of the state, and must ultimately do the bidding of the Communist Party. Period.

Pearl Harbor was the Japanese response to an American effort to limit their attempts, in effect, to turn parts of China into a colony. Today, of course, the shoe is on the other foot; now the concern is about Chinese imperialism in its near abroad. Is another war of annihilation inevitable?

No. Unlike Germany in 1914 and Japan in 1941, China is not a militaristic society. The Chinese have no interest in turning Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines into colonies, or in compelling fundamental changes in their economic and political systems; all they want is subservience in foreign affairs. Finally, the Pacific Ocean, unlike the English Channel in 1914, is very wide, so America has plenty of room to retreat, if necessary.

I can see three scenarios in the long run:

1. We reach an agreement with the Chinese on the international rules of the game. We remain competitors, but peaceful ones, and the two countries collaborate on issues of mutual interest.
2. The world is divided into spheres of influence. Japan, et. al. become Chinese vassal states. The two countries compete for the support of Australia and India. The Cold War, in effect, has returned.
3. War.

The best possible outcome is #1. The worst, obviously, is #3. My money is on #2, because, when push comes to shove, I think America will retreat instead of going to war over Asia.

Jamelle Bouie argues in today’s NYT that the Democrats should refuse to nominate Biden, or any other “moderate,” on the ground that dramatic social change only occurs as a result of conflict and confrontation with the powers-that-be. In other words, Biden won’t bring about the “revolution;” he’ll just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Guilty as charged. Biden would undoubtedly heartily agree with his conclusion; it is the premise that is faulty. Neither 2016 nor 2018 provided any evidence for the proposition that America yearns for a “revolution.” We have problems, and we need new leadership, but the country is fundamentally skeptical of dramatic change; the “revolution,” under today’s political and economic conditions, is a pipe dream.

Bouie’s best hope for a “revolution” is a national catastrophe and a subsequent political backlash. If that is what he really wants–not a Democratic victory in 2020–he needs to buy a MAGA hat and work his butt off for Trump.

Donald Trump came to power with a strange fixation on trade deficits and the belief that all of our trade partners, including our Asian and European allies, rip us off–the Chinese were simply the first among equals. As a result, he rejected the TPP, imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on friendly countries, and called for bilateral trade agreements that were skewed to protect American interests.

The logic of “America First” is that it leaves us alone to deal with Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. It means that, when we complain about the expansion of Chinese influence in Asia through the Belt and Road program, we have nothing to offer other countries to compete with that program. It gives away our greatest weapon in the struggle to force the Chinese to play by international rules. It is just plain stupid.

Nothing illustrates the conflict between the nationalist and internationalist strains of Trumpist/Bannonist thought better than this issue. How is America supposed to prevail in the predicted monumental clash of civilizations if it continues to flip the bird at all of the countries that are ostensibly on our side?

According to the NYT, over 200 Democrats have signed on to a bill that would eliminate the Social Security deficit and permit some increase in benefits by raising the payroll tax and applying it to incomes over $400,000. Is that a good idea?

Yes and no. Yes, the objective is a worthy one. The deficit is a serious problem that needs to be fixed, and the potential political gains from protecting Social Security are obvious. Any proposal that forces the GOP to choose between donors and elderly reactionary supporters clearly has some merit. But no, the Democrats have chosen to increase the wrong tax.

The suggested payroll tax increase will: (a) effectively reduce wages at a time when stagnant wages are a huge social problem; (b) transfer wealth from struggling working millennials to more affluent elderly people; (c) increase the cost of labor, thus making automation and offshoring more attractive; and (d) force employers and employees to shoulder obligations which rightfully belong to society as a whole. In addition, I don’t see any obvious justification for the doughnut hole, which will undoubtedly be the source of GOP derision if the legislation actually goes somewhere, which is unlikely before the next election.

Whatever its political merits, this bill represents bad policy. It should be rethought as soon as possible.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush clearly thought that integrating China in a web of international commercial relationships would result in a country that was more prosperous, friendly, and democratic. They were right beyond their wildest imagination on the prosperity part, but completely wrong on the other two. It is clear that China has not evolved into a larger version of Japan or South Korea, and there is no reason to believe it will ever happen.

Barack Obama was warier of China when he took office, but he needed Chinese help in dealing with issues like climate change and North Korea, and he appreciated the role the Chinese played in fighting the Great Recession. Preoccupied with other crises, he repeatedly asserted America’s interest in, among other things, protecting intellectual property and freedom of navigation, but he took little effective action to change the behavior of the regime, which consequently became increasingly assertive.

Obama’s ultimate response was the “pivot to Asia,” which included military, diplomatic, and trade components. He moved a few troops to Australia, improved our relationship with India, and, above all, negotiated the TPP, whose significance was primarily geopolitical, not economic. The overall message to the Chinese was that the US would not attempt to halt China’s rise, but would create conditions on the ground that would deter Chinese aggression towards American allies in its near abroad. It was encirclement in embryo; whether the Chinese resisted or accepted the rules of the game was up to them.

Would it have worked? We will never know, because Trump has torn up the script and taken a completely different approach. More on that tomorrow.

Bernie Sanders is often compared with Jeremy Corbyn, and with good reason. How do these two geriatric lefties match up? Here’s the tale of the tape:

CORBYN V. SANDERS

AGE: Corbyn–69; Sanders–77

PARTY LEADER: Corbyn–Yes; Sanders–No

ANTI-SEMITIC? Corbyn–Arguably; Sanders–Jewish

HATE FIGURE: Corbyn–Thatcher; Sanders–Kissinger

LATIN AMERICAN LEFTIES: Corbyn–Supports; Sanders–Supports

SOCIALISM SCALE: Corbyn–7; Sanders–3

AND THE WINNER IS . . . Sanders. While neither one of them is likely to win the big prize, Sanders at least succeeded in pushing his party a bit to the left. Corbyn will probably go down in history as an inept politician who botched Brexit, to the cost of his party and his country.

Here’s my analysis of the SOTU:

1. The first and last segments–the parts that were supposed to be inspiring and bipartisan–fell flat, because they didn’t sound authentic, and Trump clearly didn’t believe any of it. He sniffled, grimaced, and inflected at the wrong times. He simply isn’t capable of delivering a convincing speech that doesn’t rely on anger and sarcasm.
2. The bridge was a series of boasts about the economy, some of which were actually true. Describing his tax cut as a “middle class” measure, however, was rich, even for him.
3. The meat of the speech, which completely undercut the ostensibly bipartisan part, was a MAGA red meat festival full of the usual Steve Miller images of rampaging illegal immigrants raping and looting their way around the country. There was some fresh material for the base on socialism, abortion, and Venezuela, but most of this stuff was just recycled from campaign rallies.
4. In the final analysis, the most noteworthy part of the speech was the threat to wage war on Congress if the House investigates him. I admit that I quite literally gasped when I heard that.
5. In the final analysis, the base will be happy, no one else will be impressed, and nothing will change.

The People’s Republic has now existed slightly longer than the Soviet Union. Does it present the same kinds of issues to the rest of the world as the USSR, and is it also doomed to implode?

No on both counts. The Soviet Union was a military and an ideological challenge for the United States. The Soviets didn’t dare use the military option against the US, and the ideological challenge faded when it became obvious to everyone, include the Soviet leaders, that communism couldn’t deliver a high quality of life for the masses. The USSR never actually built anything that wasn’t a weapon that anyone else wanted to buy, so it was never an economic threat to the US.

China, on the other hand, most assuredly is an economic rival to the US. Even if the communist regime collapsed tomorrow, the economic growth of the last 20 years would remain, and Chinese nationalism would not disappear. A dramatic political change similar to the collapse of the USSR would not, therefore, make dealing with the Chinese any easier.

The Chinese challenge is here to stay. We need to get used to it, and to figure out a way to deal with it.

Ignore Mueller. Ignore Michael Cohen. Ignore Stormy Daniels. Ignore the National Inquirer. Ignore Flynn. Ignore Roger Stone. Ignore Manafort. Ignore Rudy. Ignore the Trump Tower meeting. Ignore Christopher Steele. Ignore Comey. Ignore the NBC interview. Ignore the tax returns. Ignore the foreign guests at the Trump hotels.

Ignore Mattis. Ignore Kelly. Ignore Spicer. Ignore McMaster. Ignore DeVos. Ignore Zinke. Ignore Pruitt. Ignore Carson. Ignore Tillerson. Ignore Mnuchin. Ignore Ross.

Ignore the tweets. Ignore Charlottesville. Ignore the shutdown. Ignore the wall. Ignore the family separations. Ignore the regulatory foxes in the henhouse. Ignore the lies and the narcissism. Ignore “executive time.” Ignore the scattershot decisionmaking process. Ignore Puerto Rico. Ignore the determination to replace Obamacare with something–anything–that would be worse. Ignore the regressive tax cut. Ignore all the times he mindlessly threw red meat to his base and divided the country. Ignore the shots at the judicial system and the Fed. Ignore the complaints about the “deep state.”

Ignore Putin. Ignore the stupid trade wars. Ignore the empty optimism about North Korea. Ignore MBS. Ignore the repeated and gratuitous insults to our allies. Ignore the complaints about NATO. Ignore the unnecessary drama over NAFTA. Ignore the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the Iran deal. Ignore Afghanistan and Syria. Ignore the Turks and the Kurds. Ignore his open enthusiasm for dictators. Ignore the impending arms race. Ignore his contempt for the rule of law and democratic principles, both at home and abroad.

The 2020 election can be boiled down to this: Trump gave us peace and prosperity, and the Democrats will give us socialism and Venezuela. Nothing else matters.

To which I would reply: that sure is a whole lot of ignorance.

China is far from a finished product. If you want to know its future, it is logical to start by identifying its strengths and weaknesses, which are as follows:

STRENGTHS

1. A LARGE POPULATION: China’s size alone would give it substantial regional, and even global, influence.
2. STABLE AND COMPETENT GOVERNMENT: Regardless of your feelings about the Chinese system, you have to give the government enormous credit for what it has accomplished over the last 20 years.
3. A RESILIENT, PRAGMATIC PEOPLE: Consider how much the Chinese have endured within your lifetime, and how far they have come since the Cultural Revolution. Could we have done that? I’m not so sure.

WEAKNESSES

1. POWERFUL, UNFRIENDLY NEIGHBORS: We have Mexico and Canada as our neighbors; they have Russia, Korea, Japan, India, and Vietnam. In spite of Trump’s best efforts, it’s not exactly the same thing. Just dominating the region will be an enormous challenge.
2. DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES: The population is aging rapidly, due in part to the one child policy, which will inevitably slow down economic growth in the foreseeable future. In addition, the Chinese have avoided creating much of a welfare state by relying on families to take care of their own. With urbanization and the aging population, at some point, that will no longer work, which will further increase the strains on the system.
3. LACK OF LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC VALUES: It has always been assumed that the rule of law, a free press, official transparency, and respect for property rights are essential to economic development after you reach a certain level. China doesn’t have any of that; the Communist system naturally results in rampant official corruption and arbitrary decision-making. Will the Chinese be the exception to the rule, due to their size? That’s the $64,000 question.
4. RISING EXPECTATIONS: No one who survived the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution is going to have anything but gratitude for the current regime. Younger Chinese, however, will have much higher expectations for their government, which is bound to make mistakes along the line. How tolerant will they be of those mistakes? No one knows the answer to that yet.