Cromwell

The conventional wisdom is that midterm election results don’t reflect the condition of the markets.  And, in truth, the markets will in no way influence the vast majority of voters on this occasion, either.  So why do they matter?

They matter because, while Trump has firm control of the CL and Reactionary factions of the GOP, and has long since lost the CDs, the PBPs are still in play.  Their loyalty to him is purely transactional.  If it appears that an unchecked Trump is going to cost them money over the next two years, they will have no reason to go out and vote for GOP candidates, and some of them probably won’t.  In districts that are up for grabs, that will make a difference.

James Baker has advocated in the NYT for the use of the Bush administration’s response to Tiananmen Square massacre as a precedent for dealing with the Khashoggi incident.  Baker is a reasonable man with vast experience, and his views deserve to be taken seriously.  However, I think he is missing some of the important nuances of the situation in his analysis.

Baker argues that the US has always backed Saudi Arabia because it is a force for stability in the Middle East.  That is a half-truth, just as it would be a half-truth to say that Pakistan is a force for stability in its neighborhood.  Yes, the government traditionally has said the right things about terrorism, and has made some genuine efforts to prevent it.  On the other hand, the Saudi government has consistently acquiesced to, and on occasion has openly promoted, efforts to spread its radical interpretation of Islam throughout the world.  The consequences were inevitable; as I’ve said on many occasions, if you take any given terrorist act and go back far enough, you will almost always find a link to a Saudi-backed madrassa.

That was then, and this is now.  Whatever you might think of MBS, you can’t call him a force for stability–he’s a revolutionary.  He has flexed the country’s muscles abroad in a way that his predecessors never did, typically with disastrous results.  Baker’s argument about “stability” consequently holds little water in today’s environment.

Trump’s objective should be to encourage Saudi liberalization without writing a blank check for the country’s foreign adventures, which are in no way in our best interests.  Will that happen?   Don’t hold your breath.

My wife and I went to see a very popular new British musical called “Everybody’s Talking About Jamie” the last night we were in London–the same day as the massive anti-Brexit demonstration.  The supremely PC plot revolves around a 16 year old boy who dreams of being a drag queen.  With the support of his saintly single mom and his Muslim female friend, he prevails over the ignorant white male bullies and realizes his dream.  The crowd went nuts for it.

Notwithstanding the plot, “Jamie” has terrific music, so if you ever have a chance to see it, go.

It occurred to me afterwards that what is going on here is that the UK, whose politics have historically been primarily based on class, is now experiencing its own version of the culture wars and identity politics.  Brexit is the most obvious manifestation of that.  On the one hand, you have young Londoners who firmly embrace the rights of racial and sexual minorities, who disdain Britain’s imperial past, and who value their links to the rest of the EU; on the other, the kind of elderly people hanging out in cathedrals that I described yesterday.  When you superimpose this conflict on the traditional battles over equality and the state that divide the two major parties, you get mass confusion, which is a fair way to describe British politics today.

Worst cover-up ever!  I would have done it much better!

If you go into an English cathedral, you are almost certain to observe two things:

1.  There are lots of large monuments to military personnel who died in Britain’s many overseas wars.  You would expect World War I monuments to be particularly prominent this year, and they are, but you will also find monuments pertaining to the Crimean, Indian, and Boer Wars.  The number of locals who died in these realtively minor conflicts is just staggering.  That was the cost of imperialism.
2.  You will be accosted by nice old people soliciting donations for the maintenance of the cathedral and offering to provide information about the history of the place.  There are two reasons for that.  First, the government apparently has stopped providing funds for cathedral maintenance, which is hideously expensive, so they have little choice.  Second, these people genuinely love their cathedral.  Their enthusiasm can be genuinely touching.

It occurred to me while we were away that these are the people who voted for Brexit.  They feel their roots in British history and want to celebrate them.  They don’t view their imperial past as a form of racism to be disdained.  I can appreciate their point of view.

The cathedral, in other words, is the antithesis of a new London skyscraper built in the millennial neoclassical style that would fit just as well in India or China.  They represent the two sides of the Brexit debate.

Surveys consistently show that the GOP rank-and-file do not support the entitlement cuts that are so beloved by the CLs, the donor class, and a large portion of the leadership.  The politicians have responded to this as follows:

1.  Change the subject to the culture wars and hope that tribalism will overcome economic self-interest.
2.  If that doesn’t appear to be working, just lie about your program on the campaign trail.

Donald Trump ran against entitlement cuts (Obamacare excepted) in 2016.  He has, however, filled his government with proponents of those very cuts.  What happens if the GOP wins in 2020, or even in 2018?

The answer is obvious:  Trump’s ability to lie will become an enormous asset to the GOP congressional leadership.  By the time he’s done, his fans will believe that those Medicare cuts aren’t really cuts at all–they were needed to protect us from socialism and rampaging minorities and to keep the program solvent.

Does Erdogan want the head (metaphorically speaking) of MBS?  Is he looking for a diplomatic revolution in which Saudi Arabia either changes course or at least recognizes the predominant role of the Turks?  Or is he just looking for a financial bailout?

By giving the Saudis a limited amount of time before he discloses what he calls the truth, he has opened the bazaar.  We should know the answer shortly.  Only the last option, in my opinion, is within his grasp.

A large percentage of the new buildings in London were constructed in what I call the “millennial neoclassical” style–glass and steel buildings (frequently, but not always, skyscrapers) with high ceilings, large windows, well-lighted rooms, and minimal furniture, generally with clean lines.  Notably, there are no columns, pediments, or statues associated with them; they are not, shall we say, imperial, and they would fit almost anywhere in the world.

Why this style?  It could reflect the following:

1.  A rejection of conspicuous materialism after the Great Recession;
2.  The overwhelming importance of phones and other computers over other goods in today’s world; or
3.  A conscious desire to create distance between today and the UK’s imperial past, which is viewed more as racist than glorious by millennials.

#3 in particular comes with a political agenda.  More on that in subsequent posts.

Pat Robertson:  It’s important to maintain good relations with the Saudi government, even though they’re Muslims and killers, because arms sales are good for America.

Me:  What would Jesus do?  Sell fighter jets to MBS?  Somehow, I don’t think so.

Donald Trump, as we know, frequently tells blatant lies and gets away with it.  The Saudi government has obviously learned a thing or two from him; its latest explanation of the Khashoggi murder is absurd.  Will it work?

Maybe, due to Trump’s unwise determination to confront Iran and his corresponding lack of options for allies, but there are two differences between Trump’s lies and MBS’.  First, Trump’s lies are usually intended to cement his relationship with his base.  MBS doesn’t have a base; his political fortunes are tied solely to King Salman.  Second, the US is the most powerful nation on the planet, both economically and militarily.  Saudi Arabia matters, but not that much.

Here’s the dilemma (perhaps I should call it a trilemma) for the government:

1.  If the entire UK remains in a customs union with the EU indefinitely, there is a very good argument that the purpose of the Brexit vote is being frustrated.
2.  If a hard border is created between Ireland and Northern Ireland, it will damage the economies of both and threaten the political settlement in Northern Ireland.
3.  If a border of sorts is created between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, it is a powerful argument for Irish unification, which is obviously unacceptable to a majority of people in Northern Ireland, at least for now.

The government’s response has been to play for time and pray for a technological miracle that will make a plausibly hard border economically acceptable.  Will it work?  Probably not, at least not soon enough for the current PM.

The best solution, of course, is the second referendum.

Here is where the factions stand on the Khashoggi murder:

CDs:  It is a horrible violation of international law and fundamental principles of decency.  America must take actions against the Saudi government if it wants to retain any moral claims to leadership in the world.

PBPs:  As long as the oil keeps flowing and the arms sales continue, we’re still good.

CLs:  Events outside our borders are not our problem, mon.

Reactionaries:  We’re not crazy about Islamic killers, but we really hate Iran, so if Trump says MBS is ok, we’re ok with that.

Bottom line:  Don’t expect any meaningful action here.

Assume, for purposes of discussion, that the Saudi government ordered Khashoggi’s murder.  Niall Ferguson asks, so what?  America has to do business with thugs on a daily basis.  Killing a single journalist pales in comparison with the bombing in Yemen.  Anyway, the important thing is to keep a unified front against Iran.

As usual, he’s wrong.  Here’s why it matters:

1.  Killing people on foreign soil who have legitimate claims to be protected by other governments is legally and morally unacceptable.  How is this any different than Putin and his poisoners?
2. This latest episode is just more evidence that MBS has no idea what he is doing.  Do we want to back a loser?
3. I don’t really accept the argument that it is somehow in our national interest to give unqualified support to the Saudis in what amounts to an Islamic civil war.  To the extent that the argument carries any weight, it has to be based on the Saudi government’s willingness to reform and be a responsible international citizen.  This episode damages any moral claims they have against the Iranians.

David Davis had an op-ed in the Sunday Times in which he insisted that the EU will fold if the government holds firm.  It’s exactly what the proponents of Leave said during the referendum campaign.  Is he right?

No.  The EU has to keep a unified position, which means it will reflect the lowest common denominator.  That means a hard line.  In addition, the UK needs good relations with the EU more than the EU needs the UK.  If the government takes the Davis line, it will wind up with a catastrophic no deal, not a better deal.

Imagine that you are one of many Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU.  You are hoping against hope that the government can deliver a soft Brexit settlement that will do as little damage as possible.  At this point, however, it does not appear that the government has the votes to get that done.  Then what?

Your alternatives appear to be an election that could well put Corbyn in power, or a disastrous no deal Brexit engineered by Davis or Boris Johnson.  Which choice is worse?  It’s hard to say.

Well, if you ask me, you should be working across party lines for a second referendum.