Cromwell

Trump is reportedly urging GOP congressional candidates to use the avoidance of impeachment as a primary theme during the campaign.  It only stands to reason;  everything is about him, not the country or even the party’s agenda.

Impeachment is, to be sure, a tricky issue for the Democrats;  they have to thread the needle between their angry base and moderate swing voters.   While the approach will have to be different depending on how blue the district is, I would suggest the following as both a principled and practical response:

1.  Impeachment is an extreme remedy that should not be normalized.  If it is, our politics will become even more poisonous than they are today, to the benefit of no one.
2.  While there is plenty of reason to be concerned about the relationship between Trump and the Russians, and about obstruction of justice, there is not enough information in the public realm today to justify impeachment.
3.  That could, of course, change after Mueller finishes his work.  I’m reserving judgment until then.
4.  It is essential that Congress maintain strict oversight over such a corrupt and lawless administration.  I will support all reasonable efforts to do so, and will support legislation which would prevent Trump from firing Mueller.

Scenario #2:  The Democrats take the House, but the GOP retains a slim majority in the Senate.

The result:  No meaningful legislation of any kind.  Lots of Trump investigations by House Democrats.  Trump’s nominees are approved by the Senate.  Plenty of white noise, but the government doesn’t shut down or default on the debt.

So what happens after the midterm elections?  Here is the first of four scenarios:

Scenario #1:  The Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Result:  There is some talk of cooperation on infrastructure, but it melts away quickly.  The House immediately begins a host of investigations involving Trump’s business practices and the behavior of his “fox in the henhouse” Cabinet members.  The Senate refuses to confirm many of Trump’s appointees, and Chuck Schumer, based on the Garland precedent, declines to hold hearings for  Supreme Court nominees.  The government shuts down.  Default on the national debt becomes a real possibility.  Everyone looks for a resolution in 2020.

A contempt for traditional morality.

Combative and litigious.

A genius for generating national publicity.

An uninhibited sex life.

 

Is it Trump or Stormy Daniels?  You decide.

Rick Scott is running for the Senate against Bill Nelson.  He recently released a commercial with the theme that we need a businessman to deal with all of the dysfunction in Washington.  That’s hard to understand, because:

1.  Scott has been a politician, not a businessman, for the last eight years;
2.  The current dysfunction in Washington is purely the responsibility of his party, which controls the White House and Congress; and
3.  We elected a businessman in 2016 to make deals and drain the swamp.  How’s that working out?

You could describe the commercial as a failure of imagination–the GOP always wants to play its greatest hits, even if they don’t make sense in today’s world.  But really, what else can he say?  Elect me so we can have a second big regressive tax cut?  Elect me so we can take another run at depriving you of your health insurance?  Elect me so I can enable my good friend Donnie Rotten to run a chaotic White House, offend all of our allies, and avoid impeachment?

The thesis that America’s role in managing the world must decline in the long run as its GDP becomes a smaller percentage of world GDP makes perfect sense.  The question is, what then?  Who keeps order if we aren’t the world’s policeman?

Realistically, there are two options:

1.  Spheres of influence:  One could imagine a scenario in which we get the Western Hemisphere, the EU runs itself, Russia controls the former USSR, and China turns its near abroad into vassal states.  The concept could work, but it leads to lots of questions.  Who would want responsibility for Africa and the Middle East?  Would South Korea and Japan accept Chinese hegemony?  How do Australia and India fit into this scheme?  Who regulates friction among the various spheres?  These are all matters that would have to be worked out in practice by agreements among the major powers, and it wouldn’t be easy.

2.  Bolster international institutions and the rule of law:  If individual nations can’t be trusted to keep order, then international institutions are the only alternative to anarchy and oppression.  This approach would undoubtedly require the US to accept more Chinese leadership and input into the rules.  The Chinese, for their part, would have to accept more responsibility for issues that don’t impact them directly, agree to interfere in the internal affairs of other states when things get out of hand, and embrace the rule of law more openly.

Without saying as much, Obama’s approach of “leading from behind” through the creation of trade agreements and international coalitions was consistent with the second option.  In the long run, it is the best (and certainly least cynical) option to replace the Pax Americana.

At first glance, you might think that China and Russia, as fellow revisionist, authoritarian states, present similar challenges to the Pax Americana.  They don’t.

Russia has a GDP about the size of Australia’s.  It is growing very slowly.  It doesn’t sell anything anyone wants except oil and weapons.  Its objectives are to dominate the near abroad by patching together something resembling the political structure of the USSR, and to regain the international clout the USSR enjoyed prior to 1989.  As a result, Putin is basically just a spoiler outside of what he views as Russia’s natural sphere of influence; he makes life as difficult as possible for the US, not because it serves the economic interest of his people, but because it makes them feel strong and important.

China also seeks to dominate its near abroad, as it did for centuries.  Its economy is growing by leaps and bounds.  It pursues its interests predictably, and does not behave as a spoiler.  Its objective is to become an equal partner with the US, preferably without any military confrontations.  It has benefited from the current rules-based system, and does not wish to overthrow it, but it wants more say in how the system operates.

In the long run, dealing with Russian aspirations is a minor issue.  Accommodating the Chinese in a manner that is mutually acceptable will be the greatest challenge of the 21st century.

David Brooks argues in today’s NYT that, due to the power of tribalism in this country, the Democratic Party is doomed to become the left-wing mirror image of the GOP in its disdain for liberal democracy and the rule of law.

Heil, Bernie?  Give me a break.  There isn’t anyone in the leadership of the Democratic Party who looks remotely like Trump, let alone Hugo Chavez.

This is the voice of a man who can’t bring himself to admit that the GOP is the problem.  He can’t stand what he sees, so he blames America, not his party.

The latest issue of The Economist contains an article about Erdogan and his massive investments in Turkish infrastructure.  That’s what a proper strong man does.  Infrastructure spending strengthens the state, pumps up the economy, generates positive publicity, and makes both business and labor more dependent on the man at the top.  If you don’t believe it, just remember that the guy with the funny mustache built most of the autobahns, to say nothing of tanks, bombers, etc.

Given his limited connection to the GOP establishment and his fondness for building monuments to himself, you would have thought that a huge bipartisan infrastructure plan would be the keystone of Trump’s administration.  It would have been practically useful and wildly popular.  Instead, he was so unprepared to be president that he outsourced fiscal policy to the GOP leadership, which, as usual, emphasized tax cuts for the wealthy and reducing the size of the state over public investment.  As a result, there is no money for Trump bridges, tunnels, and airports, and he is just a man on golf cart.

Does Donald Trump believe in the Pax Americana?  If you just look at his statements during the campaign, the answer would be an unequivocal no.  In his view, Uncle Sap has been taken for a ride by the rest of the world.  We can’t afford to protect human rights and maintain order outside our borders.  The international rule of law is just a fig leaf for power relationships.  It’s all about ridding ourselves of  expensive external commitments, reducing trade deficits, refusing to engage in “nation-building,”  renegotiating treaties on a bilateral basis, and investing at home.  That’s how we make America great again.

Trump as President has been much less consistent, largely because he loves the display of military power, and he can’t stand the idea of losing wars.  His Syria policy changes from day to day.  He complained about the futility of the war in Afghanistan, was reluctantly persuaded to make a larger and open-ended commitment to it, and then apparently told Rand Paul that we should get out.  He supports Taiwan, but threatens to sell them out for concessions on trade or North Korea.  He revels in his own unpredictability, while the rest of the world gasps and wonders what fresh hell is coming next.

Where is he going with this?  My guess is that his foreign policy will get more isolationist with time, as he gains more confidence in his ability to make decisions without the help of his advisers, all of whom support the Pax Americana in one way or another.  However, his ego and militarism will continue to prohibit him from being completely consistent.  We will stagger on aimlessly as before.

The comedian known as Michelle.

Her jokes didn’t go down too well.

Her performance onstage

Led to howls of outrage.

If the dinner dies, it’s just as well.

Barack Obama believed in the Pax Americana, but, after the experience of the Iraq War, he wanted to do it on the cheap.  Like the lawyer that he is, he preferred to solve problems in the fastest, least risky, and least expensive way possible.  And so, he developed a style of building and assisting coalitions that came to be called (not completely accurately) “leading from behind.”

The results were mixed.  He succeeded in negotiating the TPP and the Iran nuclear deal, but Trump is in the process of destroying both of them.  The “pivot to Asia” may have moderated, but did not stop, Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.  In Syria, one can reasonably doubt, based on precedent, that an approach similar to Iraq (direct military intervention) or Libya (extensive support for local surrogates) would have led to a better result, but we do know for sure that what actually occurred had seriously negative impacts on the US, Europe, and the Syrians themselves.

In contrast to Obama’s cool rationality, we are now in an era in which brute force and bluster are valued over alliances, diplomacy, and rules-based systems.  The Pax Americana itself is under threat, both at home and abroad.  How long will this phase continue?  More on that later.

We now have data for the first quarter of 2018, and guess what?  There is no sign of the corporate investment boom that was promised as a result of the Trump tax cut.  The money is being used predominantly for share buybacks.

Who could have predicted it?  Well, everyone except Kevin Hassett.

The rationale for the tax cut is now mutating into an argument that, even if corporations don’t invest, their wealthy owners will.  Sure–they will drive up the cost of assets and buy government bonds.

And so, the final outcome of the tax cut is. . . the government gives money to rich people, who then invest in the securities the government sells to finance the deficit created by the tax cut.

Who says Republicans hate recycling?

Reasonable people can disagree about this, but I would maintain that there are two strains of neoconservative thought.  The first is that American security ultimately depends on the continuing existence of like-minded democratic regimes throughout the world, so we should be prepared to impose liberal democracy on other countries by force, if necessary.  That approach, unsurprisingly, failed miserably in Iraq, and thus is rarely heard today.

The second requires us to be the world’s policeman–not its savior.  Its proponents argue that, in a world that has become effectively much smaller as the result of technological change, small brush fires can become infernos endangering our security almost overnight.  Minor civil wars in faraway lands of which we know little, for example, can result in waves of refugees and terrorism affecting the entire world.  It’s ultimately cheaper and less risky to deal with these problems at their source than at home.  The US is the only power strong enough to do that.  If the rest of the world benefits from that level of American engagement, so be it.

#2 makes sense, but is it sustainable if we are going into a period of relative decline?  More on that later in the week.

Senator Marco Rubio threw his support to Adolf Hitler today.  While he acknowledged his differences with Hitler, he indicated that he “agreed with Hitler on some things, but he disagreed with Hillary Clinton on everything.”

Rubio conceded that he had concerns about some of Hitler’s unconventional  rhetoric, particularly about Jews, but said that Hitler’s statements should be taken “seriously, but not literally.”  He further suggested that he would have more influence with Hitler from the inside than the outside, and expressed confidence that the country’s institutions were strong enough to keep Hitler from making good on his more extreme promises.

Just to make this crystal clear, I am not saying that Trump is Hitler, or that Rubio is any worse than any of Trump’s other enablers.  I am merely pointing out that the arguments made by members of the right in favor of enabling sound a lot like the positions taken by members of the moderate German right in 1933, and that didn’t turn out too well.  The only appropriate response to Trump’s outrages is resistance–period.