Cromwell

Faced with an economic disaster largely of his own making, Erdogan has responded as all good strongmen would:  by doubling down on his mistakes and blaming foreigners.  When that doesn’t work, will he go the full Maduro?  That remains to be seen, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

From an American perspective, the thing to remember here is that Trump is just as ignorant as Erdogan, has the same authoritarian impulses, and has even less respect for the truth.  When, at some point in the future, American markets spiral out of control, how do you expect him to react?  Exactly the same way, of course, and the results won’t be pretty.

It is undisputed that the GOP weaponizes the deficit when they lose elections and ignores it when they win.  Neither they nor the country has paid the price for their irresponsibility to date;  interest rates remain low, and the economy is roaring.  It then follows, according to the left, that the Democrats should stop trying to be adults about the deficit, and should simply let it rip.  In particular, Obama’s flirtation with a grand bargain was a mistake which should not be repeated when the Democrats regain power.

Are they right?  No.  There is no guarantee that interest rates will remain low forever.  In addition, the financial problems with our entitlement programs haven’t gone away, and will have to be dealt with in the foreseeable future.  If not, the default alternative is a huge battle over how to fix the holes in the system with a deadline looming.  That serves neither party’s best interests.

According to Steve Bannon, 2016 was the inevitable result of 2008.  Angry at an establishment that had initially tolerated the predatory practices of Wall Street financiers, and then had bailed them out, the peasants with pitchforks rose up and elected Donald Trump.  Trump’s limits on immigration and tariffs (loathed by the financiers) will lead to a new golden age for American manufacturing–just you wait!   Wages for workers will soar, and America will be great again!

I hear you snickering.  Stop it!

Of course, this narrative ignores inconvenient facts and distorts others, including the following:

1.  In 2012, after four hard years of the Great Recession, the peasants rose and nominated . . . Mitt Romney.
2.  Bernie Sanders lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
3.  Trump only won a plurality of GOP votes–not a majority.
4.  Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin.
5.  Trump spent far more time denouncing Mexican rapists than Wall Street vampire squid during the campaign.
6.  Once elected, Trump stuffed his cabinet with Wall Street billionaires and signed a tax cut which gave virtually all of its benefits to the wealthy.  He continues to bash immigrants on a daily basis.  Wall Street–not so much.
7.  The tariff and immigration program has done nothing for American prosperity to date, and won’t bring jobs back in the future.

Leaving aside the holes in the narrative, there are two interesting aspects to it.  First, Bannon clearly doesn’t subscribe to the bogus GOP counternarrative that it was the Democrats and the federal government, not the vampire squid, who caused the Great Recession.  Second, his rhetoric about Wall Street in the New York Magazine interview could come straight from the mouth of Bernie Sanders.

In the end, right-wing and left-wing American populism may be brothers, not distant relatives.

How to win back Reactionary voters, and whether it is even worth the effort, has been a major topic of discussion among Democrats over the last two years.  Here are my observations:

1.  Don’t expect too much:  You’re only going to nibble around the edges, no matter what you do.  Still, that’s millions of votes that are in play on a national basis.

2.  Faux vs. real populism:  Trump stuffed his cabinet with billionaires and cut taxes primarily for the wealthy, not for working people.  Don’t forget to point that out, repeatedly.

3.  Trump hates labor:  A fair number of Reactionaries are union members.  Make a point of talking about the GOP’s ongoing efforts to destroy unions.

4.  Repeal and don’t replace:  Trump and the GOP tried to take your health insurance away.  Is that really what you voted for in 2016?

5.  Stay neutral in the culture wars:  Emphasize your local roots and your sympathy for rural culture.  Don’t let your opponent tar you as a wealthy, out-of-touch limousine liberal.

Divisive people are disgusting!  Build the wall to keep them out!

In general, you can divide the PBPs into three groups:  big “globalist” businessmen who appreciate Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation, but worry about his tariffs, reactionary social policies, and random interventions; owners of smaller businesses with only domestic clientele who love the man to death; and their wives, who have to balance their economic self-interest against Trump’s deplorable behavior.

There are plenty of votes to be won here, particularly among the women, if you’re willing to forego “socialism.”  Is that tradeoff worth it?  In 2018, it depends on the makeup of each individual district.  The issue will be much more acute in 2020.

In the blue corner, we have “The Sultan!”  A genuine Islamic authoritarian, he’s an economic ignoramus who believes that higher interest rates cause inflation.  Having tried with limited success to play the Russians off against his erstwhile American and European allies, he’s currently holding Americans essentially as hostages in an effort to force the US government to deport one of his political enemies.  He’s a piece of work, to be sure.

In the red corner, we have “The Dotard!”  An inept, corrupt wannabe strongman, he thinks the answer to every foreign policy problem is a war or a tariff.  He thinks he can make America great again by alienating every other government on the planet outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia.  He wants to bring “The Sultan” to his knees, just because, well, he thinks he can.  Swagger is his stock in trade.

LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

And the winners are . . . my UK vacation, which is getting cheaper by the day, and Vladimir Putin, as usual.  Everyone else loses.

It’s a wonderful world.

It would appear that MBS graduated from the Donald J. Trump School of Thin-Skinned, Swaggering Diplomacy (not to be confused with Trump University).  Having unsuccessfully attempted to change the government of Lebanon, blockaded Qatar, and launched an endless and bloody war in Yemen, the Saudis have now started a row with Canada over some fairly inoffensive statements about human rights violations.    What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish?

(On two related notes, the US government is not taking sides in this dispute, and it turns out that the Saudis don’t just behead people–they crucify them, too!  Bet that goes over well with Trump’s religious fundamentalist base.)

It’s one thing to swagger when you have the world’s biggest economy and most effective military on your side.  It’s quite another to do it when the world is trying to phase out the use of your country’s only real economic asset.  My guess is that Canada doesn’t even buy any Saudi oil.  Why, under those circumstances, would they capitulate to Saudi pressure?

MBS would be wise to take a hard look at his country’s real assets and liabilities, and to conduct his diplomacy accordingly.

The Koch brothers, who basically embody the CL faction, have indicated that they welcome the opportunity to work with Democrats on issues like criminal justice reform.  Is this an opening for 2020?

Not really.  While the CLs and the Democrats share an interest in clean and effective government, the former want to decrease the size of the state for virtually all purposes, and the latter want to expand it.  In addition, there are relatively few CLs to chase.

The Democrats may get a few votes from CLs who can’t stand Trump’s corruption, incompetence, and tariffs, but not enough to make a difference.  It simply isn’t worth the effort.

The internet is ablaze about Sarah Jeong, a young Asian woman recently hired by the NYT.  It appears that Ms. Jeong has a habit of making extremely derogatory remarks about white people on Twitter, often in response to attacks from right-wing trolls.  Some commentators have responded to this by insisting that racial hate speech by minorities should be held to the same standard as similar speech by white right-wingers.  Her defenders have argued, in essence, that her comments were taken out of their ironic context, and that they should be taken seriously, but not literally.

But, you ask, what about Donald Trump?  He uses Twitter to make extreme comments that are meant to firm up his bonds with his base.  If Ms. Jeong’s facially racist statements should be excused on the basis that she was just chatting ironically with her friends, shouldn’t Trump be treated the same way?

No, because: (a) Trump has responsibilities to the entire nation as president that Ms. Jeong doesn’t; and (b) he isn’t just communicating ironically with his friends–he’s also trying to trigger the libs for his own advantage.

If the Democrats are going to win in 2020, they are going to have to peel away millions of Trump voters within the GOP.  How will they do that?  I will be discussing that in terms of the four factions over the coming days, starting with the Christian Democrats.

Essentially everything about Trump and his government–the lies, corruption, incompetence, divisiveness, arrogance, and indifference (even hostility) to the condition of the poor and powerless–is an affront to the CDs.  In exchange for that, here is an exhaustive list of what Trump has done to accommodate them:

Gorsuch.

That’s it.  Getting the CDs to vote for the Democrat in 2020 should be like shooting fish in a barrel.  All you have to do is avoid sounding too overly hostile to Christian values, and try not to talk too much about abortion.  That shouldn’t be too hard.

I read the New Yorker article about the culture at CBS last week.  The allegations against Leslie Moonves were appalling and well-corroborated.  The allegations against the people at 60 Minutes were less serious and less persuasive.

One of my issues with #MeToo is that it relies primarily on public shaming as a remedy, and does not draw clear distinctions between, say, Bill Cosby and some director who slapped the butt of an actress 15 years ago.  Public shaming is a blunt instrument that simply isn’t appropriate in many cases.  In situations involving clearly criminal conduct that, as a practical matter, can be prosecuted, it isn’t enough–the perpetrator belongs in jail.  In situations involving verbal harassment and minor physical contact, the most suitable remedy is a private apology and, if necessary, civil litigation.  Public shaming should only be used for conduct that falls between these two poles.

Based on this analysis, the treatment of Moonves in the article was unobjectionable, and if he loses his job, so be it.  I’m less convinced that the 60 Minutes people were treated fairly.

Pay no attention to Trump’s tweets, his lawyers say.  They’re only “opinions,” not “orders.”  They have no legal significance.

It sounds a bit like the famous scene from the Wizard of Oz.  For some reason, the public insists on paying attention to the man behind the screen in spite of directions to the contrary.

It appears that the GOP has a new hate figure:  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She thus joins the pantheon of much-loathed, uppity women, which also includes Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

Will it work?  Fox News will try, but I doubt it.  AOC is hardly as well-known as the other two, and, given her background, she can’t plausibly be accused of being an out-of-touch, wealthy, limousine liberal.  My guess is that attacking her will only further alienate younger people, which will hurt the GOP in the long run.

“Abolish ICE” is the current rallying cry of the left.  It appears to be based on the following syllogism:

1.  Trump is a racist;
2.  His immigration policies are racist; therefore
3.  Abolishing ICE is a good way to fight racism.

While abolishing ICE may be good poetry, however, it is bad prose–just as bad as building the wall.  Sound immigration policy is built on the following principles:

1.  Refugees are protected by international law.  They are entitled to decent treatment, fair hearings, and a liberal understanding of what “persecution” means.  However, people who do not meet the standard have no right to be here, and may be deported.
2.  Given our demographic issues, it makes no sense to reduce legal immigration.  If anything, it should be increased.  We have the right, however, to admit only those people who can make a real contribution to our country.  There is nothing inherently wrong in having “merit-based” immigration;  the real issue is identifying what “merit” means.
3.  There is a theoretical case for deporting illegal immigrants who are here purely for economic reasons.  In the real world, mass deportations are unrealistic and would do far more harm than good.  Illegal immigrants who have been here for a long time (the Dreamers in particular) should be given a path to citizenship.
4. Illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes should be deported.

“Abolishing ICE” won’t even have the support of the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.  Bernie himself has made it clear that he views open borders as a Koch brothers plot to reduce wages.  If the Democratic Party makes this its position in 2020, it is looking for trouble, and will undoubtedly find it.