Cromwell

On the Trump nominee known as Brett.

The hearing’s not quite over yet.

On the issue of “boof”

We just didn’t get proof.

I believe that’s as low as it gets.

Flake has the opportunity to go out in a blaze of bipartisan glory, just like McCain.  Will he take it?  I’m not optimistic, but we will find out today.

Update:  He’s a mouse!  I’m sure you’re surprised.

Update to update:  He changed his position–sort of.  He’s still a mouse to me.

Ford’s testimony was very credible, even according to Fox News commentators.  That left Kavanaugh and the GOP senators with the following choices:  (a) label her a liar in spite of all appearances; (b) change the subject and say, essentially, that neither Ford’s charges nor Kavanaugh’s credibility matter; or (c) hold off on a vote and actually do a real investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

The one they didn’t choose was (c).  Kavanaugh went into Trump/Clarence Thomas mode and lashed out at the Democrats, thereby confirming that he is just a political hack, not the nonpartisan figure he implausibly claimed to be, and the senators became accomplices in Trumpian misogyny.  No one can plausibly maintain now that Trump’s attitudes towards women are an outlier in the GOP;  they are, in fact, the mainstream on the Judiciary Committee.

Will the GOP be punished for it in November?  Very possibly.

Don’t Let the Bitches Get You Down

You worked your butt off all your life.

Your nose was always clean.

You earned your house, your job, your wife.

You know just what I mean.

But now it’s coming off the rails

And they laugh at you uptown.

Don’t let the bitches get you down.

 

What do they want? You never know.

Is it money or just fame?

The fun was fast, but torture’s slow.

It’s tough to clear your name.

They’ll tie you up in silken knots

And treat you like a clown.

Don’t let the bitches get you down.

 

The backlash can’t come soon enough

To save you from this fight.

I know it’s hard, and times are tough

But we both know you’re right.

I’ll stand beside you till the end.

We’re bros, my fellow hound.

Don’t let the bitches get you down.

Donald went to the globalist lion’s den (i.e., the UN) on Tuesday.  His “Bitch, we’re America” speech somehow didn’t go over well with his international audience.  They laughed at him!  Imagine that!  BAD!

Time to order up some new tariffs.  Bet that will stop the laughter.  If that doesn’t work, we still have nukes in reserve.

CBS unveiled a new program called “FBI” this week.  Under ordinary circumstances, nothing could be more banal than a program portraying FBI agents as brilliant, selfless public servants keeping the country safe;  in today’s world, however, any positive picture of the FBI has to be viewed as a political statement.

In light of that, I found myself wondering what kind of programming Fox could run to satisfy Trump’s base.  Here are some thoughts:

1.  Frackin’ Up!  Drama about heroic workers in fossil fuel industries trying to give America energy dominance in spite of government overregulation.

2.  Real American Family:  A family consisting solely of straight white Christians does battle with politically correct neighbors.  Starring Roseanne Barr.

3.  Wall Street Blues:  Young bankers struggle to survive in New York on a salary of only $1 million.

4.  Build That Wall!  Game show in which the best wall builder wins cash and prizes.

5.  My Favorite Russian:  Hilarious comedy about a bromance between purely fictional Russian and American presidents.

6.  ICE:  Heroic federal agents catch and deport Muslim terrorists disguised as Central American women and children.  Starring Chuck Norris.

And, of course,

7.  Deep State:  Brilliant political outsider is elected president and takes on the smug, corrupt elite.  Guest appearances by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and James Comey.  Special guest appearance by Bob Mueller.  Starring Brad Pitt.

Well, in his dreams, anyway.

So, are you nauseous yet?

The confirmation hearings have been everything I predicted–and worse.  Here is a list of what I consider to be the errors on both sides:

1.  Trump shouldn’t have nominated such an obvious GOP partisan, but he did.
2.  Kavanaugh should have been willing to answer reasonable questions about his judicial philosophy, but he wasn’t.
3.  If it was even appropriate to go down that road, the Ford information should have been introduced earlier, but it wasn’t.
4.  The senators who expressed opinions about the credibility of the parties should have kept quiet until the hearing was over.
5.  The FBI should have been called in to do a proper investigation, but it wasn’t.
6.  Kavanaugh should have been less smarmy and more forthcoming about his hard-partying youth, but he wasn’t.
7.  Kavanaugh never, never, never should have given an interview to Fox News.
8.  The final vote should have been delayed until a real investigation was done and all of the parties interviewed, but it won’t be.

And so, the likely outcome is that somehow, magically, all the Republicans find Kavanaugh credible, all of the Democrats find him incredible, he is ultimately confirmed, the GOP loses moderate female votes in November, Kavanaugh is remembered for the rest of his life as a Bill Cosby in waiting by half the population, and the Supreme Court’s reputation for fairness and probity is damaged substantially.

Somewhere, Vladimir Putin is laughing, and not just at Trump.

 

In the past, when American presidents have imposed tariffs, it has been done for narrow and well-defined purposes.  American and Chinese commentators alike have noted that Trump’s tariffs are different;  they don’t come with a clear wish list, and no one knows exactly what they are intended to accomplish.  What does Trump want?

When he took office, I was fairly certain that his objective was 80’s style managed trade in the interests of reducing the deficit, which is, of course, a weird obsession of his.  Today, I’m not so sure.  I think he has two other purposes:

1. To force the Chinese to openly acknowledge his supreme power over them and the rest of the world; and
2.  What amounts to regime change–China must evolve into a genuine market economy and stop challenging American economic and military superiority.

What is the likelihood of this happening?  As to #1, the Chinese are probably willing to make cosmetic concessions to the barbarian–they have been doing that for thousands of years–but nothing more than that.  As to #2, forget it;  the regime isn’t going to commit suicide just to maintain access to the American market.

And so, unless Trump changes course and makes a fairly meaningless deal in the interests of chalking up an ego-driven “win,” which is a reasonable possibility, the trade war will go on indefinitely.

Kavanaugh took the extremely unusual step of doing an interview on Fox News last night.  The contents of the interview are of less interest than the choice of forum.  It would appear that Kavanaugh is trying to rally the GOP base to support his nomination, which would make perfect sense if he were a politician, but he isn’t, at least in theory.  He is supposed to be above politics.

The principal objection to Kavanaugh in my eyes is not his sex life as a teenager, but that he will just be a stooge for Trump and the GOP agenda.  His record as a partisan political figure prior to serving on the DC Circuit was always of some concern in that regard.  The interview with a channel known for its GOP affiliations has only made things worse, and will damage the image of the Supreme Court in the likely event that he is ultimately confirmed, because no one is going to believe he has any interest in giving his political opponents a fair hearing, no matter what he said during the confirmation process.

For Trump, the entire notion of an apolitical judicial system is just so much sentimental hooey, so he probably thinks destroying our illusions is a good thing.  It isn’t.  Like the markets, the judicial system runs on public trust, not just raw power.  If that trust ultimately disappears as the result of overtly partisan judicial behavior, either tyranny or anarchy will follow.

 

Reactionaries, by definition, revere a mythical past in which traditional values and authorities were uniformly respected, and the country was great as a result of it.  Reactionary thought is consequently romantic in nature.  It is not based on cold economic self-interest.

For that reason, it is frequently impossible to “reason” with a Reactionary, as we typically use that term.  In most cases, appealing to their economic interests, and complaining when they ignore them, is useless.  The Democrats may be able to pick off a few here and there, particularly by employing the old labor solidarity narrative with union members, but most of their votes are out of reach, and chasing them won’t be cost-effective.

No, I won’t back down.

No, I won’t back down.

You can stand me up at the gates of hell

Gonna stand my ground.

And I won’t back down.

—–Tom Petty

Commentators from all over the political spectrum have noted that conservative judges are plentiful and fairly fungible, so Trump could withdraw the Kavanaugh nomination and still wind up with a very similar result.  The question for today is, will he?

Of course not.  Trump has to personally identify with the poor entitled frat boy swatting at the pesky #MeToo monsters like an embattled King Kong.  In addition, he learned long ago that backing down just betrays weakness, and weakness is to be avoided at all costs.  Be on the attack 24/7/365.  That’s what made America great.  At least, it’s what made him great.

And so, we’re heading for some awful theater that will combine features of both comedy and tragedy.  It will be must see TV.  But then, the OJ chase was, too.

Fifty Ways to Fire Bob Mueller

The problem is all inside your head

Jeff said to me.

The answer is easy if you take it logically.

I’d like to help you in your struggle to be free.

There must be fifty ways to fire Bob Mueller.

 

(Chorus)

A push in the back, Jack.

Send a pink slip, Rip.

No need to be coy, Roy.

Just listen to me.

Leak to the press, Les.

It’s good when they all guess.

Send out a tweet, Pete.

And set yourself free.

 

Jeff said it’s really not my habit to recuse.

Furthermore, I hope my meaning won’t be lost

Or misconstrued.

But I’ll repeat myself ’cause I know you hate to lose.

There must be fifty ways to fire Bob Mueller.

 

(Repeat chorus)

Parody of “Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover” by Paul Simon.

The GOP candidates for president ran in fairly clear ideological lanes during the 2012 and 2016 primaries.  Mitt Romney and Donald Trump benefited from the absence of meaningful competition within their respective lanes.  If you’re puzzled as to why the Republicans nominated a white bread conservative in 2012 and a raving nationalist in 2016, you need look no further than that.

The Democratic race in 2020 will be more complex than that.  There are two major schisms within the party:  realo vs. fundi (i.e., do you promise the moon and the stars or just the moon?); and identity vs. class.  How do the likely candidates stack up?  Some of them are not perfectly defined at this point, but here are the ones we know:

1.  Joe Biden:  Realo/class.
2.  Bernie Sanders:  Fundi/class.
3.  Elizabeth Warren:  Realo/identity.
4.  Cory Booker:  Realo/identity.

Harris definitely falls on the identity side, and I’m guessing she’s a fundi, but that remains to be seen.

Obama and Clinton were realo/identity.  I suspect that’s where the sweet spot can be found, but it will depend to some extent, as it did with the GOP in 2016 and 2012, on the number and strength of the competitors within each group.

Donald Trump has assured us on several occasions that “winning” a trade war with China will be easy due to the large trade deficit.  After all, we can apply tariffs to far more products than they can.   Is he right?

Of course not.  First of all, the entire idea that running a trade deficit constitutes “losing” is completely inane–particularly for a decentralized economy that runs on the decisions of economic entities, not the government.  Second, it assumes that the interests of consumers are of no importance; only producers matter.  Third, the economic and political systems of the respective countries operate to the advantage of the Chinese.  The more open American system provides opportunities for both consumers and producers who bear the brunt of the war to complain to their representatives; the state-driven Chinese system, on the other hand, permits the government to compensate well-connected losers and to repress the others in the name of keeping order without appearing to be inept or hypocritical.

And then, of course, there is the question of what, exactly, Trump’s objectives are in fighting the trade war.  More on that later in the week.

Like Ronald Reagan, Trump loves to swagger;  it’s his stock in trade.  Unlike Reagan, however, he spends a substantial amount of his time whining about the “rigged” system, or the “deep state,” or whatever he thinks is afflicting him at any given time.  The billionaire son of a millionaire developer clearly believes the system is designed to be unfair to him.  He’s a victim, just like his constituents.

That’s pathetic, of course, but it reflects the changing times.  When Reagan was in office, the Reactionaries were confident that they were the moral majority.  Today, they’re looking for the Benedict option, or for a Cyrus the Great to protect them from the growing hordes of the unholy.  As a result, they love Trump almost as much when he whines as when he swaggers;  it’s his way of feeling their pain.