Cromwell

I was reading excerpts from an NPR interview a few weeks ago in which Elizabeth Warren was making very Trumpian complaints about Chinese trade policies. The interviewer reminded her that Obama had worked for the TPP in an effort to create a rules-based system that would be an alliance against Chinese militarism and mercantilism in embryo. Warren responded by saying she thought the TPP would be an ineffective mechanism to restrain predatory Chinese behavior. She had nothing to propose as an alternative.

That, my friends, is a serious problem. For all of her reputation as an intellect, Warren has not made any meaningful effort to think this issue through. She has a visceral reaction to Chinese human rights violations and mercantilist trade policy, a willingness to work with allies to compel change, and nothing more.

When you get right down to the essence of it, there are only a few ways to respond to the rise of China. You can acquiesce to it, and turn the world into spheres of influence. You can try to crush it unilaterally through tariffs and military force. You can join them, by using the same kind of mercantilist levers–primarily subsidies, tariffs, handouts to friendly countries, and discriminatory regulations. Finally, you can go completely the other way and double down on what has worked in the past: an open political, economic, and legal system with relatively low taxes and regulations; and the fair enforcement of a rules-based international system with the assistance of our friends. That was Obama’s approach.

Donald Trump apparently believes (at least on some days) that he can bring about regime change in China through the use of tariffs. He can’t. What does Warren believe? We won’t know until she actually goes to the trouble of putting her oversized brain to the problem first.

The Chinese have invested hundreds of billions of euros in Greece, most notably in the port at Piraeus. The implicit quid pro quo is the Greek government’s willingness to block EU resolutions on Chinese human rights. The EU and the US are unhappy about this state of affairs, but there have been no meaningful repercussions to date.

I see two significant lessons in this:

1. It illustrates the fundamental differences between the challenges presented by the Soviet Union and China. The former was principally an ideological and military adversary; the consequences of surrendering to it were understood to be a military occupation and a massive change to the occupied country’s socio-economic system. China, on the other hand, is willing to invest large sums of money, and only asks for silence on issues that don’t directly affect the country in question in return. You can easily understand why the Greeks (and others) would see this as a good deal, particularly in an age of EU-imposed austerity.
2. “America First” is no way to compete with this kind of challenge. You can’t beat something with nothing but complaints and threats.

People my age may remember a Monty Python sketch pitting Greek against German philosophers in a game of soccer. The players just wander around the pitch in deep thought until Archimedes figures out the point of the game and the Greeks score. It’s quite hilarious.

The sketch would have worked just as well if Chinese philosophers had been substituted for the Germans. The questions for today are, how do Greek and Chinese thought differ, and why?

There are two essential differences: Greek thought is individualistic, while the mainstream of Chinese philosophy emphasizes the collective; and the Greeks viewed time and history as being a linear process, while the Chinese see time as having a circular element. I believe these differences are mostly attributable to geography. Chinese society was built around communal agriculture, and changed very slowly; Greece was resource-poor, so many Greeks made a living as middlemen in trade. The latter condition lends itself to a world view that is more dynamic and more focused on the individual.

DONALD TRUMP’S ARMY

Please stop that talking.

You’ve just talked all night.

The country’s sleepwalking

Into a Middle Eastern fight.

Call Israeli information.

Have we got ourselves an occupation?

___________

(Chorus)

Donald Trump’s army is here to stay.

Donald Trump’s army are on their way.

And I would rather be anywhere else but here today.

_______________

There was a Checkpoint Charlie.

He didn’t crack a smile.

But it’s no laughing party

When you’ve been on the murder mile.

Only takes one itchy trigger.

One more widow, one less sand n—r.
_______________________

(Chorus)

___________

Tehran is up for grabs.

Cairo is full of Arabs.

We could be in Palestine.

Over in by the Sunni line

With the boys from Mississippi and the Tennessee line.

_____________

But there’s the danger.

It’s a profession, a career.

It could be arranged

With just a word in Mr. Bolton’s ear.

If you’re out of luck, won’t cut you slack

We’ll be sending you back to Iraq.

_____________

(Chorus)

Parody of “Oliver’s Army” by Elvis Costello.

Harris is fond of “speaking truth” to people. Here is what I would say to her:

You have advantages that are the envy of your competitors. You stand out in a crowd, due to your looks and exotic ethnicity. You have a degree of charisma that most of the other candidates don’t share. The primary timetable, which puts your home state up early, will help you. You have some politically shrewd ideas about policy. Your ability to cross-examine Trump’s people is a calling card of sorts. And yet, you seem to be stuck in the mud. Why?

Because you don’t know what you stand for, except your own interests. You haven’t decided if you want to run as a fundi or a realo. You change positions based on polls, social media, and the last person who spoke to you. You may be trying to bridge the gap between the two factions, but you come across to the general public as someone whose only core value is her own ambition. That simply won’t fly in a long and grueling campaign, particularly since we already have a president who meets that description.

Time is starting to run short. If you repeatedly respond to questions during the debates by saying that we “need to have a conversation,” instead of taking a position, everyone will view you as an unprincipled wimp, and your campaign will wither and die. That would be a shame. You’re too talented to let that happen.

And oh, by the way, there are far more votes in the identity/realo than in the identity/fundi quadrant. You might want to keep that in mind.

The one positive thing we have learned about Trump while in office is that he is not a warmonger. That is undoubtedly due to his peculiar belief that negotiations, not combat, are the ultimate test of manhood. Whatever. It could be a lot worse.

That notwithstanding, we are currently heading for war with Iran. The questions have always revolved around the scope and destructiveness of the war, not its inevitability. In that instance, the picture is becoming a little brighter.

It is a given that Trump doesn’t have the time and the patience for a ground campaign and an occupation, which means the alternatives are to cut the grass or annihilate. My original prediction was that we would use nuclear weapons, because cutting the grass wouldn’t result in regime change, without which the Iranian nuclear threat would never completely disappear. Trump’s record, however, indicates that, for all of his bluster, he is usually satisfied to engage in low level military activity and to spin it as a massive success. Bibi and MBS would have no objection to cutting the grass, as it guarantees continuing American involvement on their behalf in the region. And so, my prediction has changed; I think Trump will be content with limited, strategically meaningless air strikes.

One of the first things I learned during my vacation in Greece was that the typical Western narrative regarding the course of civilization doesn’t apply there. So, you ask, what does that mean?

The narrative runs as follows: Western civilization had its beginnings in ancient Greece; the Romans essentially absorbed and disseminated Greek ideas; the Roman Empire fell and civilization collapsed with it; but around 800, things started to improve, and they continued to improve (notwithstanding a blip for the Black Death in the 14th century) until the present day. It is a message of optimism.

The Greek story is different. The Eastern Empire didn’t fall; in fact, in the sixth century, it retook most of what the Western Empire had lost to the barbarians. The East remained a bastion of civilization during what we call the Middle Ages, even in the face of the Muslim onslaught, until 1204, at which time the Empire was stabbed in the back by perfidious Crusaders. The Empire returned shortly thereafter in weakened form until 1453, at which time the Turks put an end to it. Greece was controlled politically by the Turks until the early 19th century. The Western and Greek golden ages, as a result, in no way coincide, and the Greek message is not one of consistent improvement over a millennium.

There is merit to their position. We tend to overlook the importance of Byzantium in our narrative, but we shouldn’t. Constantinople arguably was the center of the world for nearly a thousand years. To the average Greek today, the ancient Athenians might as well have lived on another planet, but the demise of the Byzantine Empire still smarts, and Greco-Turkish relations reflect that.

Giving his opponents nicknames apparently worked for Trump in 2016, and he doesn’t have much imagination, so he’s trying it again for 2020. “Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted,” and “Little Marco” have turned into “Pocahontas,” “Sleepy Joe,” “Alfred E. Neuman,” and “Crazy Bernie.” I can’t say I get the Mad Magazine allusion with Mayor Pete, but logic isn’t a big part of this.

All I can say is, if any of the Democrats want to use “Wizard of Id,” “Donnie Rotten,” “Steely Don,” or “Man on Golf Cart,” they have my permission.

One of Uncle Bernie’s less endearing qualities is his propensity for framing complex policy issues as a battle between the oppressed little people and the evil, greedy Big (Fill in the blank). Medicare-for-All is a classic example of that.

Health care is, I believe, about 17 percent of GDP, and the vast majority of providers aren’t big anything. They are looking at significant cuts in their compensation in a Medicare-for-All scheme. Since our ridiculously high health care costs are attributable to unit prices, not overuse, there is a strong argument in favor of cutting their compensation through the use of consumer cartels, but is it reasonable to expect them to simply acquiesce to help out the rest of us? Should they be demonized for protecting their own self-interest in the same manner that you and I would under similar circumstances? Even worse, should they be ignored on the basis that they don’t really exist, and the health care cost problem is caused completely by Big Pharma and Big Insurance?

Bernie needs to be straight with the American people. Medicare-for-All isn’t just a huge gamble for people with employer-based insurance; it will involve painful wage cuts and lost jobs for millions of average working people who are going to fight tooth and nail against the plan. You can’t have a reasonable discussion about the political feasibility of Medicare-for-All until you openly accept that fact.

The great would-be emperor Xi

Shipped products across the wide sea

Thus stealing our jobs.

No more will he rob

Us, said Trump and his team angrily.

Booker’s baby bonds. The Harris LIFT Act and teacher raise programs. Warren’s student debt relief and opioid plans. Free public college. Medicare-for-all. The list goes on and on.

The Democrats intend to roll back the Trump tax cut, probably impose new taxes, and use the money for new programs; the problem is that they can’t afford all of them. Warren in particular has probably spent the projected proceeds of her wealth tax five times over. In the real world, what should be the priority here?

In my view, the first objective should be to shore up the programs we already have. I would spend the money on infrastructure (particularly green infrastructure), filling the deficits in Social Security and Medicare, and improving Obamacare. If anything is left over, use it for a program similar to the Harris LIFT Act to increase the wages of struggling workers.

The revolution will have to wait.

After the 2016 election, I laid out three possible scenarios for a Trump economy. “Funhouse Reagan” assumed a large, regressive tax cut and an explosion in the deficit; “Reverse Robin Hood” assumed the tax cut would be offset, at least in part, by cuts in social spending; and “Trade Warrior,” which speaks for itself, could be attached to either of the other two. So how has it turned out?

I said that “Funhouse Reagan” was the most likely alternative, and I was right. I assumed, however, that the unnecessary stimulus would result in significant interest rate hikes, and ultimately, a recession. There were indications of that earlier this year, but the rate hikes have stopped, because: (a) Trump engaged in inappropriate jawboning of the Fed; (b) growth in the rest of the world has been tepid; and (c) above all, most of the tax cut just went into the pockets of the wealthy, and did not cause a consumer spending boom, so demand-driven inflation has not been a problem. In a sense, therefore, the ineffectiveness of the tax cut can be credited for the absence of an interest rate backlash; all Trump has done, in essence, is take our inequality problem and make it worse.

“Reverse Robin Hood” is periodically advocated by the CLs within the administration, but cuts in social programs have mostly been averted. The effects of “Trade Warrior,” on the other hand, have yet to be determined. They have been muted thus far, but that could change in the near future, particularly since Trump appears to be concerned that the Democrats could attack him from the protectionist left for being a wimp on Chinese trade issues.

The psychological damage caused by “Trade Warrior” on the markets, if tariffs get larger, could well exceed its actual practical impacts. We’ll see.

I was right: time was on Maduro’s side, not ours. The Trump/Rubio effort to topple the government has failed. Maduro has yet to do much in retaliation, because he very reasonably fears that a big blast of repression will result in a provocation and an American military response. The repression will probably take place slowly, and invisibly, but it will happen.

And so, the question is, what’s next for Trump and Rubio? As I said from the beginning, the only real solution here is a military intervention–most likely, from Brazil and Colombia, with substantial support from us. The only way that happens at this point is if we have a suitable pretext AND Trump/Rubio essentially pay the Brazilians and Colombians billions of dollars to do their dirty work. That could happen, but it is more likely that Trump will simply engage in his usual efforts to spin his failure as a success, and the poor Venezuelan people will suffer as a result.

The most likely outcome is that the Roberts Court will turn Roe into an empty shell instead of overturning it. As I have explained before, the distinction is meaningful, because, as long as Roe is still alive on paper, there is no possibility of federal legislation banning abortion in blue as well as red states. The possibility certainly exists, however, that the Court will take the more extreme step and overturn Roe altogether. The question for today is, how could that be done?

There are two possible rationales, with different legal and political consequences. The most direct, in-your-face approach would be to find that there is no textual or historical basis in the Constitution for a right to privacy. That approach would be welcomed by the far right, but it would also throw the continuing validity of the decision on birth control in the Griswold case into question, which would be a disaster for the GOP. Even women who have moral issues with abortion typically support the use of birth control, which could easily be banned in some of our redder states. The gender gap would consequently turn into a chasm.

The other, more moderate approach would be to assert (largely falsely, but the Court has plenty of recent history of cherry-picking facts) that scientific advances since the 1970’s have made the trimester-based balancing approach in Roe obsolete. That rationale would leave Griswold and birth control untouched, at least for the immediate future.

The anti-abortion forces smell blood with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the Court. Questions about what happens after Roe is overturned are no longer purely abstractions. We need to start thinking seriously about them, and preparing for their consequences.

Barack Obama’s decision not to intervene militarily in Syria led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and the exodus of millions more. You could argue–and I would–that the alternative was even worse, based on the outcome in Iraq, the Russian interest in the status quo, and the lack of a unified opposition to Assad. You can’t reasonably deny, however, that refusing to intervene came with heavy costs.

Warren and Sanders are even more hostile to the notion of military interventions than Obama was. They should be asked about Syria during the debates, because if you’re not willing to be the world’s policeman, you have to be openly prepared to tolerate a lot of damage that will be done by some pretty thuggish characters. That’s the tradeoff. It can’t be avoided.