Cromwell

Two interesting and related pieces of news today:

1. Polls taken shortly after the Cohen plea and the Manafort conviction show no meaningful change in Trump’s approval ratings.  His base clearly just accepts criminal behavior as the cost of doing business with a man who swaggers and is on their side.
2.  Some GOP members of Congress apparently have a lengthy list of potential investigations of Trump if the Democrats retake the House.  As you would expect, it’s a doozy.  Instead of using the list as a basis for conducting its own investigations, however, the Republicans plan to use the fear of it to persuade undecided voters to keep the House Republican.  You heard that right–GOP House members are being told to fight tooth and nail to make sure that Trump is not called to account for his Russia ties, conflicts of interests, etc.

Where have you gone, John McCain?  A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

Ronald Reagan was the first GOP president to openly appeal to Reactionaries.  He didn’t actually do much for them, but they knew he was on their side, and at the time, that was enough.  In a similar vein, George W. Bush completely understood the language of the religious right, and used it to great effect, but didn’t make a great effort to push their agenda.  His father did nothing at all.

The Reactionaries thus were a fairly undemanding lot until the latter stages of the 2008 election, at which time the crowds were baying for Palin, not McCain.  The Tea Party, which consisted of both CLs and Reactionaries, followed, with its emphasis on scorched earth legislative tactics and its open contempt for government and the establishment.  Trump was the final piece of the puzzle.

What changed?  In my opinion, two things.  First of all, an African-American was elected president.  That fact, in and of itself, was enough to persuade the white nationalist right that they were in danger.  Second, they have Fox News to whip them up on a daily basis.  That didn’t exist in Reagan’s day.

The bottom line is that Reactionaries viewed themselves as a “Moral Majority” during the Reagan years.  Today, they think of themselves as an oppressed minority.  It is the newly-acquired sense of victimhood that makes them so angry and dangerous.

If Bernie Sanders really wants to make his “revolution” a reality, he’s going to have to do two very improbable things.  First, he has to overcome the checks and balances inherent in our political system that are designed to make radical change very difficult.  Second, he’s going to have to persuade white working people and minorities to put aside their differences and work together in their shared economic self-interest to overthrow the capitalist barons and create the long-awaited American Jerusalem.

To that end, logically, Sanders should be out doing everything he can to:  (a) persuade the Democratic Party to become more openly accepting of white working culture (e.g., don’t be so hostile to religion, patriotism, and guns); and (b) convince poor white nationalists that voting with poor minorities against the wealthy is in their best interests.  It sounds impossible, and it probably is, but my point is that Sanders isn’t even trying.  He appears to think that all he has to do is propose government spending programs that will benefit working people of all colors, and everyone will fall into line.

Centuries of history say he’s wrong about that.  Personally, I would bet the ranch on it.  The Democratic Party is first and foremost a coalition of victims, and class is only a small part of that.

Last Tuesday, Trump’s former fixer confessed that he was guilty of a campaign finance violation involving the payment of hush money at Trump’s direction, while his former campaign manager was convicted of eight counts of various kinds of fraud.  The president went to a rally in West Virginia later that day.  The crowd chanted “Lock her up!”

I was incredulous when I heard this the first time.  Were these people living in some sort of parallel universe?  Later, however, I began to understand the real significance of “Lock her up!”  It scares the daylights out of me.

The message behind “Lock her up!” is that the base will support any effort by Trump to become a true authoritarian.  They have processed all of the information about his incompetence and corruption, and they simply don’t care.  They love his swagger and the fact that he is on their side–that’s all that matters.  If he has to turn the country into Hungary in order to stay in power, he has their blessing.

Don’t think for a minute that he didn’t hear them.

John McCain apparently described himself as a man who made lots of mistakes, but who loved his country and believed in public service.  That sounds about right to me.

I’ve always believed that the country would have been far better off if McCain had won the GOP nomination in 2000 and had been elected president.  He was far better prepared to deal with 9/11 than Bush was.  My guess is that he probably would have launched the Iraq War, just as Bush did, but he would have fought it more competently.

In 2008, on the other hand, he was the wrong man at the wrong time.  If he had been elected, all of his instincts would have told him to cut the deficit, not to stimulate the staggering economy.  He would have been a disaster.  We can be grateful that he didn’t win, and that doesn’t even include the farcical Palin episode.

I didn’t agree with his enthusiasm for overseas military adventures, but at least he advocated intervention for the right reasons.  He believed in human rights, the rule of law, and liberal democratic values.  He supported the ideas that truly make America great.

In so many ways, he was the antithesis of Trump.  He will be missed, badly.

I posted a column about a future Trump presidency entitled “The Accidental Fascist” about two months before the 2016 election.  What I meant by that was that Trump was running as a strongman without ideology who would “drain the swamp” and get things done, and when he inevitably failed, he would have to choose between defeat at the polls and humiliation or doubling down on authoritarianism.   I predicted that he would pick the latter, given his thin skin and pugnacious personality.

I am pretty sure we are going to reach that point after the 2018 election.  Trump is sounding more and more like a beleaguered mob boss.  His legal problems are mounting, former members of his inner circle are turning on him, and his only real “accomplishment” is a tax bill that everyone other than the GOP donor class hates.  He wants to lash out and double down, because that is what he has always done when he has run into trouble.  What better way to do that than to fire Sessions and turn the DOJ into his own personal goon squad after the election?

His base is practically inviting him to do it.  Only the Senate can stop him.  More on that tomorrow.

To say the least, Jeff Sessions is an unlikely champion of our constitutional liberties, but the fact is that his sense of professional ethics is about the only thing that is preventing us from becoming an illiberal democracy.  It isn’t just Mueller, although that matters a lot.  It is the complete politicization of the DOJ which is at stake here.

Some GOP senators are apparently telling Trump that it is OK to replace Sessions after the election.  If that happens, you can be sure that Trump will be looking for someone who will turn the DOJ into a body designed to protect his legal interests and lock up his opponents.  There is no reason to believe that a Senate controlled by the GOP will do anything to prohibit that; after all, if you accept the logic of an argument by a pro-GOP commentator in today’s NYT, an independent DOJ is just a “norm,” not a constitutional requirement, and “norms” are designed to evolve over time.

The bottom line is that it is really, really, really important for the Democrats to do everything possible to win control of the Senate in November, even though the odds are stacked against them.  If they don’t, all hell is going to break loose.

The EU is up the creek without a paddle.  Under attack by both Putin and Trump, it apparently is unable to solve the problems of immigration and slow growth.  The UK is leaving; Italy could be next.  Illiberal democracy is a growing threat, and more euro crises are very likely in the future.  What should be done?

The EU has been a success as a sort of souped-up free trade area.   The leadership should accept that and focus on what it does best–permit the free movement of people, goods, and services.  Give up on the notion of “ever closer union” unless and until the people of Europe start to see themselves as Europeans first, and citizens of their own countries second.  Stop defending the euro at all costs, stop the bailouts, and let the Italians go if they insist.

Other than the nonsensical “rigged witch hunt,” Trump’s favorite catchphrase is “no collusion” (sometimes misspelled).  As we know, “collusion” is a legally undefined term, and is not by itself a crime, although it sounds a lot like “conspiracy,” which is.  What does Trump mean by “collusion,” and is he guilty of it?

As far as I can tell, Trump’s definition of “collusion” has three elements:

1.  The Russians took illegal actions for the purpose of getting him elected;
2.  He knowingly cooperated with them; and
3.  He offered, and subsequently acted, to provide the Russians with foreign policy concessions in exchange for their assistance with the election, or possibly for financial help with his businesses.

In short, the essence of Trumpian “collusion” is a quid pro quo.

What does the evidence that is currently available to the public show?

1.  There is no doubt that the first standard was met.  Even most Republicans admit it.
2.  #2 is a bit murkier.  There is, of course, tape of him calling on the Russians to assist with Hillary’s e-mails, but he insists that he was joking.  There was the famous meeting at Trump Tower, but we do not know for certain that he was aware of it.  Various campaign operatives had contacts with Russians, and some of them lied about it, but we don’t know what, if any, direct communication they had with Trump.  Mueller may have evidence on this point of which we are not aware.
3.  There is plenty of evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as efforts to provide a quid pro quo.  Trump employed people in his inner circle with Russian connections; his son-in-law tried to create a secure back channel to the Russian government to discuss policy even before he took office; he has done everything he can to put off imposing sanctions on the Russians; he continues to damage our relationships with our European allies; and finally, he has repeatedly praised Putin and put the Russian system on the same moral plane as our own.  In short, he is doing exactly what you would expect a paid Russian agent to do, and with considerable success.

The problem is that these actions can also be explained by his very unusual ideology and personality.  So what exactly is motivating him?  We will probably never know, in spite of Mueller’s best efforts, because even if the system had the ability to ask him directly, nothing he said, under oath or otherwise, could be taken seriously, given his propensity for telling lies.

If there is one thing upon which Trump’s defenders and I agree, it is that Mueller should release his report as soon as possible, because:

1.  The American people deserve to know its contents prior to the election; and
2.  Realistically, Trump can’t fire Mueller between now and November, because he knows it would damage the GOP’s chances of winning the election (and endanger the Kavanaugh nomination, as well).  Once the election is over, however, he will have no such reservations.  If the GOP hangs on to both houses, he will view it as vindication, and act accordingly;  even if it doesn’t, he may well figure that his base will protect him from being removed from office, no matter what.  If so, he’s probably right.

Fast forward to 2024.  Bannon, Trump, and Putin have succeeded in destroying the unity of Europe and breaking the alliance with the US.  The EU and NATO only exist on paper.

Germany is, by far, the largest economy in Europe.  It is no longer protected or restrained by the rest of the continent.  What will the Germans do?  Will they build nuclear weapons to deal with the potential threat from Russia?  Will they make an issue of the border with Poland?  Will militarism resurface out of necessity?

The last hundred years of history suggest that the answer to all of those questions is yes.  The lesson for Bannon, Trump, and Putin is to be careful what they ask for, because they might get it.

Historically, progress towards an “ever closer union” has been driven by an alliance between the French and the Germans.  Over the last fifteen years, however, Germany has grown much faster than France, and the German government proved itself much better at getting things done.  As a result, the center of power in the EU moved decisively towards Berlin.

The Great Recession, the bailouts, and the various euro crises put the Germans in a position to dictate terms to the rest of the EU.  They consequently attempted to Teutonize the EU by imposing austerity on its debtors.  Austerity resulted in widespread resentment, not a speedy recovery.  In addition, the German attempt to share the burden of illegal immigration among all of the EU states was an admirable failure, and led to political problems at home.

The German effort to remake the EU through its economic and political clout was largely inadvertent, was never popular, and is over.  Today, the leadership of the EU comes from . . . no one.  Dreams of an “ever closer union” have been put on hold, and the EU is just trying to survive.  How will it evolve?  More on that later in the week.

A few thoughts about yesterday in the judicial system:

1.  While the Manafort case has no direct connection with Trump, Mueller needed a win to convince the handful of undecideds that the investigation isn’t just a “rigged witch hunt.”  He got it.
2.  The really appalling thing about the Manafort conviction is Trump’s reaction;  instead of distancing himself from the man, he continues to say, essentially, that a little fraud among friends isn’t worthy of prosecution.  Given his history, that’s exactly what you would expect.  As far as he’s concerned, anyone–the government included–who permits himself to be duped by a liar gets what he deserves.
3.  Cohen’s statements about the hush money in open court clearly make him criminally responsible for a campaign finance violation.  He won’t be removed from office for that, however.  His base is glad he paid the hush money;  without it, Clinton would be president today, women, gays, and illegal immigrants would be in charge, and the country would be going to hell in a handbasket.
4.  There can be no serious dispute that the hush money was paid at Trump’s direction.  No one would do that without the client’s knowledge and approval.  Trump’s only legal defense, in the final analysis, will be that he did it, not to win the election, but to save his marriage.  His previous denials won’t help him persuade anyone with that defense.
5.  Unfortunately, Trump now has a greater incentive to stay in office after yesterday, because he knows he’s looking at a potential jail sentence the minute he leaves office.
6. Get ready for lots of chants of “Jail to the Chief!” and “Lock him up!” for the rest of his term.

I DID NOT AUTHORIZE PAYING HUSH MONEY TO THE PORN STAR!  But what if I did?  Everybody does it!

Following up on yesterday’s post, how exactly do Republicans who believe in both capitalism and revealed religion reconcile the two?  For the CDs and the Reactionaries, the answer is quite different.

For a CD, capitalism is embraced, not as an end in itself, but as a mechanism that creates wealth, which can then be redistributed by the government in the interests of a just society.  The CD believes in a robust welfare state; a regulated capitalist economy is the device that makes it possible.

Religious Reactionaries, on the other hand, tend to believe that worldly prosperity is a sign of righteousness and God’s favor.  For them, therefore, there is no conflict between capitalism and religion; the poor and unfortunate get what they deserve, and there is no reason for the government to bail them out.