Cromwell

That the GOP Congress would enact a huge, regressive tax cut is about the least surprising thing in the world.  What is novel, however, is the clear policy preference for business owners over high wage earners, as manifested in the pass-through provisions of the legislation.

Where did this come from?  I think there are two reasons:

1.  The GOP has genuinely started to believe all that rhetoric about “job creators.”  As a result, the idle rich are seen as being more virtuous than hardworking  high wage earners.

2.  High-earning professionals disproportionately vote for Democrats due to the GOP’s position on science and the culture wars.  The pass-through legislation contains distinctions relative to professions that only make sense if you view them as a reward or punishment for voting patterns.

Naturally, this approach makes the party’s neo-Victorian approach to the poor look like rank hypocrisy.  More on that at a later date.

Trump is, of course, polling very poorly, but he takes consolation in the fact that the stock market is soaring.  He’s not the only reason for that, of course;  markets are going up all over the world.  It would be churlish, however, to suggest that his tax cut and deregulation program didn’t have something to do with it.

The problem is that the stock market is overvalued by most standard historical criteria.  What happens when we have a correction?  Will he feel compelled to overreact in order to deal with the damage to his self-image?  It could easily happen.

On the one hand, the “King of Debt” talks down the dollar in order to boost exports, and his Treasury Secretary did the same thing at Davos last week.  On the other hand, he promotes a tax cut bill that is designed to encourage foreign investment and increase the deficit and interest rates, which will push the value of the dollar up.

I don’t get it.  Do you?

The purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement is to educate individuals and governments about institutional racism in the judicial system and law enforcement and to get the government to do something about it.  Whether you sympathize with the movement or not (I do), you can’t say there is anything illogical about their goals or tactics.

#MeToo is a different matter.  The movement seems to consist primarily of rich and famous women appearing on TV to denounce sexual harassment by rich and powerful men.  Who is the audience for this, and what can it accomplish?  Here are some possibilities:

1.  If the point is to send a message to men who don’t engage in that kind of behavior, it’s irritating and pointless.  As I’ve said previously, I don’t need to be told that sexual harassment is wrong any more than I need to be told that robbing banks is wrong.
2.  If the point is to reform the harassers, chances are that they don’t even recognize themselves as harassers.  That battle needs to be won by affected individuals fighting back in the trenches on a day-to-day basis, not by celebrities wearing pins or flowers on TV.
3.  If the point is to speak to other, similarly-situated women, that is a very small universe, and why inflict the message on everyone else?
4.  If the point is to inspire women who are not rich and famous to fight back against their oppressors, do celebrities really have a right to speak for them?

In my opinion, #MeToo is just about aimlessly blowing off steam.  That’s understandable, but it doesn’t accomplish anything in the long run.

The most appropriate response is, compared to what?  The authoritarian models would be Russia and China.  A few rhetorical questions are in order:

1. Are refugees from Africa and the Middle East lining up to get into either country?
2.  Has economic growth in Russia outstripped the US in recent years?
3.  Do Putin’s military successes in Crimea and Syria somehow make Russia a better place to live?
4.  Do the Russians produce anything that anyone wants to buy except petroleum products?
5.  Are the people of Hong Kong happy about increasing Chinese efforts to control the politics in their city?
6.  Would you like to live in a country that kidnaps citizens of foreign nations and holds them in secrecy?
7.  Would you like to live in a country that severely limits your access to foreign web sites?
8.  Is inequality in China increasing or decreasing?

No, liberal democracy has not failed, particularly relative to the alternatives.  Individual politicians and governments, yes;  the systems themselves, no.

I don’t know what Mueller knows, and he has vastly more experience in this field than I do, so I’m unlikely to second-guess his conclusions, whatever they may be.

Assuming, for purposes of argument, that Trump lets him finish his job, it appears to me that there are four possible outcomes of the investigation:

1.  He has Trump indicted.  This is very unlikely, as no previous special counsel has tried it, regardless of the strength of the evidence.  It is much more likely that the ultimate resolution of any findings of illegality will be left in the hands of Congress.

2.  He writes a one page letter saying there is insufficient evidence to support any charges against Trump.  The public will not be satisfied with this, so I doubt he’ll do it.

3.  He writes a detailed report explaining why, in his opinion, there is insufficient evidence to support any charges against Trump.  In all likelihood, there will be ammunition for both parties in this report.  Obviously, impeachment will not ensue.  The report, if anything, will help the GOP slightly in the election.

4.  He writes a detailed report explaining why, in his opinion, there is adequate evidence to support charges against Trump.  Democrats will cry for his impeachment, but the GOP won’t bite; the foundation has already been established for an argument that Mueller was biased.  The report becomes a huge campaign issue and helps the Democrats.

#3 and #4 are the most likely outcomes.  Neither will result in impeachment, but #4, under the right circumstances, could lead to Trump’s resignation.

We know from experience that there are two kinds of Trump speeches.  The first, “Faux Reagan,” attempts to uplift and unite the country.   These tend to be pretty boring, because he doesn’t have the ability to pull them off:  his words are cliches; he grimaces and scowls instead of smiling; and he inflects at the wrong time.  On a more positive note, however, at least he doesn’t offend anyone, and he talks about the country instead of himself.

The second, “American Fuhrer,” is weird, but compelling.  He paints a dystopian picture of an American rotting away, filled with drugs, violent criminals, and murderous illegal immigrants.  The outside world is filled with sharks, and we have no real friends except Israel.  He alone can fix these problems.

Last night’s speech was predominantly “Faux Reagan,” but there was some “American Fuhrer” thrown in about illegal immigrant crime and North Korea to keep the base happy.  I switched to an NBA game every time he started banging on about some hero in the audience.  Mostly, it was just dull and mildly annoying.

I’m sure his fans will say it was a triumph.

1.  In spite of achieving unprecedented heights of wokeness during the telecast, there were lots of complaints afterwards that women didn’t win enough awards and that Grammy voters and show producers alike pandered to the tastes of old white people instead of celebrating the work of cutting edge hip-hop artists.
2.  The ratings declined by 24 percent.

There is a lesson here for the Democrats in 2020.  If the primaries devolve into a long shriek about white male privilege, swing voters will choose Trump over a nominee who appears to despise them.

“Turning point.”  “Bipartisan.”  “Presidential.”  “New Trump.”  Those are the kinds of phrases you can expect to see in tomorrow’s headlines if, as expected, Trump reads his speech from a teleprompter and doesn’t talk about “American carnage.”

Don’t believe it–not for a minute.  We’ve seen enough to know what he is, and he isn’t going to change in any meaningful way.  And by the way, the bar for an acceptable speech should not be the ability to stand and read for an hour.

There has been a lot of chatter about David Frum’s new book in various national publications over the last few weeks.  The predominant opinion seems to be that the fears in the book are overstated, and that our checks and balances are working reasonably well.

Except now, the GOP House members who are supposed to be acting as a check on the executive are so determined not to perform that function, they have released a misleading document that endangers national security.  Of all of the revolting things that have happened over the last 12 months, this one has to be right at the top.  And where is the GOP leadership while this is happening?  Out to lunch, I’m afraid.

Just imagine what these people will do if we have a war or a major terrorist attack and Trump demands legislation curtailing the constitutional rights of his political opponents.  Do you think Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will stand in his way?  Me, neither.

Send in the Trumpocrats–don’t bother, they’re here.

From the opening Kendrick Lamar number to U2’s performance in front of the Statue of Liberty to Kesha’s emotional orgy, last night’s Grammy’s reached levels of wokeness that have never been seen before at an awards program.  It made me positively dizzy.

The problem, of course, is that if you’re going to be that in your face, you had better have a great product to sell, and I didn’t hear it last night.  Instead, I found myself wondering how it would play out if Dr. Luke won Producer of the Year.

I would imagine that virtually everyone living in a red state changed the channel after about two minutes of Kendrick Lamar.  Since there are about fifteen televised country music awards programs throughout the year, that probably wasn’t a big deal for either the producers or the viewers.  I don’t think the Oscars will reach that level, however;  red people go to movies, too.

The Tonys, on the other hand. . .

Barack Obama didn’t swagger.  He killed people and blew stuff up because the job demanded it, but it didn’t seem to give him a lot of pleasure.  He treated his wife and two daughters with both affection and respect.  There were no allegations of sexual harassment that I know of during his administration.

Today, of course, the story is very different.  I was reminded of this when I saw a vehicle with a bumper sticker that said, in slightly saltier language, that we were now kicking rear ends, not kissing them.  This was viewed as a cause for celebration.  The swagger is back!  Manhood rules!

It has been said that Bill Clinton was the first black president.  If Obama doesn’t have that distinction, it seems only fair to call him the first female president.

Strengths:  bright and charismatic; background as prosecutor; gets to run in two lanes.

Weaknesses:  not really a national figure; use of illegal immigrants as a signature issue won’t appeal to much of the electorate.

Prognosis:  She could emerge as a fundi leader, and she could make a splash during the debates, but she won’t win.

Strengths:  executive and legislative experience; smooth, polished, and reasonable; can appeal to both white and minority voters.

Weaknesses:  may have some issues with fundis; comes across as Obama Lite.

Prognosis:  Obama Lite should look pretty good after four years of Trump.  He is a strong contender, even if Biden runs.

At this time last year, I thought we were headed for an agreement among the strong men–Trump, Assad, Erdogan, and Putin–that would permit Assad to remain in power, send the Iranians and Hezbollah home, and authorize the Turks to do whatever they needed to do with the Syrian Kurds.  This approach would, of course, have left our erstwhile allies in the lurch, but it had something important to offer everyone else, and a cynic might have welcomed it.

I guess I gave Trump too much credit for having a stable and coherent policy. Instead, we are in a situation where the Turks are bombing the Kurds in areas close to American troops.  The new plan appears to be to create an enclave of American allies in Syria under the pretense of continuing to fight IS and use it to extract concessions from Assad and the Russians in the peace negotiations. What it is really doing is driving a deeper wedge between us and the Turks, to Putin’s obvious delight.

Operating in the gray area between the Turks and the Kurds was always very difficult, but Obama managed to do it with some success.  Do you have faith in Trump to do the same?  Me, neither.