Cromwell

On the senator named Lindsey Graham.

Now he tells us that Trump is the man.

He called him a kook.

But he trusts him with nukes.

For his country, he gives not a damn.

Sunday’s NYT included an article discussing Trump’s use of Twitter and how it creates dissonance in our foreign policy.  I’ve posted on that subject before, and the article added little to my previous comments.

What the article missed was the element of deliberation that goes into Trump’s tweets.  Unlike any of his predecessors, and based on his experience as a businessman responsible only to himself, Trump believes that unpredictability is a virtue, not a vice.  If mixed signals leave everyone guessing what he’ll do next, that keeps his options open, and has the additional advantage of focusing the world’s attention on him, where it so obviously belongs.

Of course, Trump has responsibilities to the American public, and to the world as a whole, as president that he didn’t have as a self-employed businessman.  He simply doesn’t accept them, and we are left in peril as a result.

It appears that Trump is about to announce a number of protectionist actions, mostly aimed at China, later this week.  Here is where the factions stand on protectionism:

1.  CLs:  No way, Jose!  Protectionist actions are an unwarranted infringement on the free market and economic liberty.
2.  PBPs:  Protectionism will cost us lots of money.  We’re opposed.
3.  CDs:  Not our thing, either way.
4.  Reactionaries:  Now we’re talking!  Bring back our lost manufacturing jobs!  It’ll be the fifties all over again!  #MAGA!

It should be obvious from this analysis that Trump wouldn’t have the votes to impose protectionism through legislation.  Unfortunately for us, he can lawfully do plenty of damage on his own.  The real issue politically is whether the PBPs will abandon him, even after the big business-friendly tax cut, if he follows the Reactionary line on protectionism.  It probably depends on whether the business in question is dependent on foreign markets or not.

1.  Sexual harassment and abuses of power are just wrong–period.  I don’t need a lecture on that any more than I need to be told that murder and theft are wrong.
2.  Who was the audience for this display?  If the message was directed solely at Hollywood, that makes sense, but why make tens of millions of Americans who don’t work in Hollywood listen to it?  If, on the other hand, it was directed at society as a whole, why would anyone assume that a group of rich, glamorous actresses have the right to speak for all American women, most of whom have little choice but to grin and bear it under similar circumstances?
3.  My guess is that most women from red states came away with the sense that this was just an orgy of political correctness, and that Harvey Weinstein was serving as a proxy for Donald Trump.  I’m not sure I would disagree with that, and I will be surprised if it does any lasting good.

The factions will respond as follows to proposed additional infrastructure spending:

1.  CLs:  Ugh!  Starve the beast!  Starve the beast!
2.  PBPs:  Anything that promotes future growth is fine with us.  If it involves privatization, that’s the icing on the cake.
3.  CDs:  Works for us.
4.  Reactionaries:  Sounds like a good way to #MAGA.  Some underemployed white men might get better jobs out of it, too.

The CLs control enough votes to prevent a bill with large amounts of additional federal spending from being approved.   As a result, there are only two ways to get legislation through the system:  either water down the federal involvement to the point that the bill is meaningless; or push it through with Democratic support and split the GOP.   My guess is that neither will happen.

There are essentially four reasons why people voted for Trump in 2016:

1.  I agree with Trump’s white nationalist program:  20 percent of the electorate.
2.  I would vote for a ham sandwich over any Democrat:  20 percent.
3.  I have reservations about Trump, but I will take my chances with the devil I don’t know over “Crooked Hillary”:  5 percent.
4.  We need a successful businessman to put an end to dysfunction in Washington:  5 percent.

The Democrats can’t reach the first two groups.  The last two are clearly in play, and are subject to the Democrats’ control.  What they need to avoid is nominating a candidate who replaces the last two rationales with:  Trump may be awful, but he’s still better than x, given his unsavory past; and I don’t like Trump, but I prefer him to x, because he wants to raise my taxes.

Paul Ryan, of course, wants to move on to cut Social Security and Medicare. Here’s where the factions stand on that:

CLs:  Cutting federal spending is, by definition, a blow for freedom!  Go for it!  You da man!

Reactionaries:  Whoa, Nellie!  We’re all in favor of cutting welfare for undeserving minorities, but we old white working people paid a lot of money into the system over the years, and we want what’s coming to us.  Keep your government hands off our money!

PBPs:  Cutting entitlements is perfectly OK in concept, but in reality, it could lead to a political backlash and a Democratic victory in 2020.  Our tax cuts could be in danger.  We’re opposed unless the Democrats buy in.

CDs:  Cutting programs for the poor and elderly, particularly to finance regressive tax cuts, is just wrong.

There aren’t enough CLs to carry the day, so it probably won’t happen.

Steve Bannon is a proud, unreconstructed Reactionary;  as a result, I disagree with him on virtually everything.  He has an enormous ego and a big mouth. There are holes in his ideology to which he seems oblivious.  His judgment and tactical sense are questionable.  Finally, he appears to have assumed that he has more of a following than Trump, which is incorrect.  There isn’t much to like here.

And yet, he has some interesting ideas, his interest in American workers appears to be genuine, his comments about the Trump family were accurate, and he at least stands for something bigger than his own ego.  In that, he differs from the corrupt, ignorant gasbag in the White House.

My sympathies are consequently with Bannon in this battle–not that they will do him any good.  Will Bannonism survive?  In a nutshell, Bannonism is an attempt by the Reactionary wing of the GOP to impose its agenda on trade, immigration, entitlements, and taxes on PBPs through primaries.  Bannon believes that the PBPs will always pull the lever for Reactionaries over Democrats, so winning primaries will lead to a takeover of both the GOP and the country as a whole. Trump is more realistic on this point;  he understands that PBPs have to be wooed through tax cuts and deregulation, and that the GOP can’t win general elections without PBP votes and donations. Alabama is proof that Trump and McConnell are right on this point, and Bannon is wrong.

Hold on to your hat; it’s going to be an exciting (mostly not in a good way) year in the Middle East, including the following:

1.  Lebanon:  Will the Israelis invade?  (I’ve been predicting that for years, but it hasn’t happened yet; Netanyahu appears to want the US to solve his Hezbollah problem for him by going to war with Iran.  This could be the year, though.)

2.  Israel:  Will Netanyahu survive his legal issues?  (Don’t know)  Will the government continue its slow march to a one-state “solution?”  (Yes.)

3.  Egypt:  Will the government get a better handle on terrorism?  (No.)  Will it liberalize?  (No.)

4.  Saudi Arabia:  Will the MBS reforms survive, or will they be overwhelmed by a backlash?  (The latter, but it may not be in 2018)

5.  Yemen:  Will the parties be driven to negotiations by misery and exhaustion?  (Maybe)

6.  Iran:  War with the US?  (Yes.)

7.  Iraq:  Can the government figure out a way to get the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites to work together?  (Doubtful.)

8.  Syria:  Can an acceptable political solution be reached?  (Doubtful.)

Obama chose to keep fairly quiet the last time there was widespread political turmoil in Iran, largely because he didn’t want the protesters to be plausibly identified as US agents by the government.  True to form, Trump has no such qualms, even though he has made it clear elsewhere around the world that he doesn’t care in the slightest for liberal democratic values, which just makes him look like the complete hypocrite that he is.

Years of studying revolutionary politics have taught me that this kind of activity only succeeds when the powers that be are divided and doubt their own legitimacy.  I don’t see enough of that in Iran for the movement to succeed. Before long, things are going to get ugly for the protesters, which could lead to the end of the nuclear deal, which in turn could lead to American/Israeli political isolation, and, most likely, a major war in the Middle East.

If you liked 2017, you’re going to love 2018 in Asia.  Here are the biggest stories:

1.  Peace or war in Korea?  Trump will attack North Korea if he feels his credibility as the baddest man on the planet is at stake, or if he thinks the alternative is humiliation.  He’s fairly good at spinning his failures, so war isn’t a done deal, but it most definitely could happen, and nukes could be involved.

2.  Will Kim do something big to disrupt the Olympics?  Probably not.  The attention of the world is already on his country, and offending South Korea is bad policy, at least for now.

3.  A trade war with China?  It certainly appears to be on the horizon.  How far it will go remains to be seen.

4.  Return of the fill islands!  Trump has made it clear (as if we didn’t already know it) that he was backing off China in the hope of obtaining more help with North Korea.  If the help doesn’t materialize, and it probably won’t, expect some tough talk about freedom of navigation at the very least.

The Brexit negotiations will dominate the political scene in 2018.  Can the government figure out what it wants to do?  Can it even survive?  My best guess is that the absence of an obviously better alternative will keep the government limping along for the entire year, even as growth slows and infighting continues.

That kind of talk alienates our (former?) allies, frightens the South Koreans, and makes Kim look positively statesmanlike, which is almost impossible.  But hey, the base loves it, and that’s all that matters, right?

Kim announced yesterday that North Korea now has the ability to strike the US with a missile with a nuclear warhead.  There is plenty of reason to believe that he is lying, but I will assume for the purpose of this post that he is telling the truth.

Correctly or not (I would say not), Kim has always tied the fate of his regime to the development of a nuclear deterrent.  If he actually has one at this point, the question is, what now?

Launching a first strike on the US is an absurdity.  From a strategic perspective, the principal advantage of having a long-range nuclear capability is that it potentially decouples the interests of the US and South Korea.  Would Kim then dare to threaten, or even attack, South Korea?

Probably not.  Paradoxically, the South Koreans are so accustomed to his threats that a new round of them would receiving nothing more than a shrug.  An actual attack would come with enormous risks, and even if it somehow succeeded at an acceptable cost, Kim would have to find a way to adapt his regime to run the South, which by itself would present tremendous problems for the Hermit Kingdom.

It is much more likely that Kim’s end game is to negotiate away part, but not the essence, of his nuclear program in exchange for trade and political concessions. Everything he said yesterday is consistent with that conclusion.

Here are the five biggest issues for the EU in 2018:

1.  What happens with the German government?  In the long run, the country will be better off if the Social Democrats don’t join the government.  In the short run, it will be better off if they do.  No predictions on what happens here.

2.  Who wins the Italian election?  There’s lots of danger for the EU and for the Italians themselves here.

3.  What happens with Macron’s reform proposals?  Jupiter is doing pretty well at home, but his plans for the EU won’t go anywhere without the assistance of the Germans, who appear to be gazing at their navels at the moment.

4.  Whither Catalonia?  The issue cries out for meaningful negotiations.  Whether they will occur is anyone’s guess.

5.  How does the EU respond to quasi-authoritarian governments within its borders?  It’s hard to present yourself as a soft power option when some of your members don’t really believe in liberal democracy.  No solution to this has been found to date.