Cromwell

Sheriff Joe and Harvey are butt-kicking winners like me!  Very impressive!  Wish they could help me drain the swamp in DC!

When Barack Obama was on an overseas trip early in his term, he was asked a question about American exceptionalism.  His apparently tactful response was that every country rightly considered itself to be exceptional for one reason or another. Republicans went ballistic over the supposed lack of patriotism that his remark displayed, and his comment was part of the basis for the bogus GOP claim about the “apology tour.”

Strictly speaking, of course, Obama was right.  However, American exceptionalism traditionally has differed from most kinds of exceptionalism in that it focuses, not on language, religion, culture, or ethnicity, but on our political system.  Americans believe their system of limited government, individual rights, and the rule of law is the best in the world, and will work for everyone.  Just as our country is made up of the descendants of immigrants, and can be viewed as a sort of UN in miniature, so the rest of the world can learn from our example.

The irony, of course, is that the new Republican president doesn’t view the world in this way.  Trump is a blood and soil nationalist with minimal respect for any legal limits on his power.  He would fit better in Poland or Hungary than here.

Believe it or not, I occasionally have dreams about politics.  This is the fruit of one of them.

It occurred to me last night that the GOP’s position on pretty much everything can be reduced to two words:  GOVERNMENT SUCKS!  At best, it’s horribly inefficient and can’t get anything right;  at worst, it actively operates against your values and interests (if you are a Reactionary).  While the government was giving us Iraq, Afghanistan, stagnant wages, and Obamacare, the private sector was creating the iPhone and Twitter.  And so, the best course is always to put your faith in the private sector if you want to get something done.

My reactions are as follows:

1. Yes, sometimes government actually does suck.  For example, if the GOP can’t raise the debt ceiling, and thereby does untold damage to the economy for no good reason, that would be one of them.
2. The Trump presidency should be enough to end our hero-worship of businessmen.  What if John Galt is actually an unhinged moron?
3. The paradox of the GOP argument is that it may or may not apply when they are actually in power.  The argument becomes stronger the more the GOP flounders, which may actually work to their advantage.
4.  Does American government usually suck?  It depends on whether the glass is half empty or half full.  If you lived in a third world country, you would say no.  I don’t know of any jurisdiction in the US where the roads aren’t maintained, the trash isn’t picked up, criminals aren’t jailed, and the parks and libraries aren’t kept open.
5.  The John Galt wannabes who say that everything should be left to the private sector don’t have any understanding of how the government permeates everything we do.  For example, the iPhone wouldn’t work but for a host of federal regulations.  And John Galt uses the roads and the parks and the libraries and the judicial system just like everyone else, only more so.

Government is, at its essence, a service provider.  Every new proposed government program has both costs (including opportunity costs) and benefits. You can have a reasonable debate about whether any particular program is worth it; politicians should do their best to see that the debate occurs in the open, and is civil.  But you can’t get anything done if one side simply asserts that all government programs are wasteful and evil, because that isn’t true.

As a developer and businessman, Donald Trump called himself “The King of Debt,” and had reason to love low interest rates.  Candidate Trump, on the other hand, mouthed orthodox GOP blather about how the Fed was corruptly debasing the currency to prop up the Obama agenda.  Given his concerns about GDP growth, President Trump has powerful incentives to ignore his campaign rhetoric and promote low rates.  How will he attempt to resolve these obvious contradictions?

Given Trump’s aversion to everyone and everything tied to Obama, it was never likely that he would reappoint Janet Yellen, which presumably is why she felt empowered to disparage his regulatory agenda.  My guess is that he will nominate someone with few, if any, previously expressed views on the subject. The nominee will obfuscate and essentially tell everyone what they want to hear, will be confirmed, and then will be an inflation dove in practice.

After the departure of Bannon and the epic flip-flop on nation-building in Afghanistan, Matthew Yglesias wonders what the point of a Trump presidency is, if you are a Reactionary.  If Trump is going to govern as an inept and corrupt orthodox Republican,  what practical benefits does he have to offer his base?  Wouldn’t they be better off with Mike Pence, or even Jeb Bush?

From a purely policy perspective, the question makes perfect sense, but the fact is that for Reactionaries, style is substance.  Trump throws them red meat every day.  He makes them feel appreciated.  He reminds them constantly that he is on their side in their battles against minorities, foreigners, and pagans.  For them, every outrage, and every breach of protocol, is just more proof that he is not the kind of establishment politician who has been selling them down the river.

In short, Trump is gambling that he can screw over his base with tax and benefit cuts as long as he consistently shows them love.  It will probably work.  It has, so far.

 

Based on the speeches he gave the last two days, there are two politicians named Donald Trump.  The first of them is an extension of his businessman persona I will call “The Dealmaker;”  in spite of his innumerable flaws (ignorance of policy, thin skin, obsession with “winning,” etc.), this one is an orthodox politician who reads from a teleprompter and does his best to get business done and unite the country.  The second is a raging demagogue who does nothing but throw red meat to his Reactionary base through tweets and campaign appearances;  this one looks more like an angry stand-up comedian than a politician.

Both his supporters and his detractors naturally view the unscripted demagogue as being the more “authentic” version of Trump.  I am beginning to think, however, that part of his frustration with the media is their inability to see that the two personas are, in his mind, completely compartmentalized.  In other words, only the words and actions of “The Dealmaker” are meant to be taken seriously as policy by the MSM;  the tweets and outrageous statements at rallies are just a form of entertainment for his Reactionary base, and for himself.

If I’m right, and I think I am, this approach brings a level of cynicism and dishonesty to the presidency that has never been seen before, and it is no surprise that the rest of the world doesn’t get the joke.

In “The English Constitution,” Walter Bagehot divided the functions of government into the “dignified” and the “efficient.”  The “dignified” element, personified by the Queen, inspires the feelings of loyalty and unity that are an essential part of nationhood.  The “efficient,” personified by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, actually gets things done.

The American system requires the president to perform both functions.  Trump is a grotesque failure as the “efficient” leader of the country, but his shortcomings are even worse on the “dignified” side.  He projects an America that most of us cannot recognize.  He is thin-skinned, narcissistic, and arrogant, and he lies all of the time.  He does not appear to have any kind of a sense of empathy.  He is the supreme divider, not a uniter.

Thus the case for an American monarchy.  But who might the monarch be?  After all, the US isn’t the stuffy old UK.  We need a monarch suitable for the age of reality television.

Say hello to Queen Kim and the House of Kardashian!

Trump characteristically told the country we would fight to “win” in Afghanistan on Monday night.  Yesterday, Rex Tillerson indicated that the point of the troop increase and the supposedly new strategy was actually to create breathing space and a stalemate which could ultimately lead to successful negotiations with the Taliban.  Tillerson’s comments were, of course, much more realistic;  their significance is that they point out just how little faith we can put in anything his boss says.

On a related note, Trump apparently complained during his Phoenix rally that the media pay too much attention to his tweets.  After you stop snickering, consider what he really meant by that:  there is a whole category of presidential speech is that mostly intended to fire up his base, is not intended to be viewed as objectively true by the public, and should not be judged as such.

In other words, the most powerful man in the world feels entitled to lie any time he wants if it serves his purposes.  No wonder he complains that the media treat him differently than any other president;  he is different than any other politician in my memory.

FAKE NEWS SHOULD STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO MY TWEETS!!!!

There are three logically coherent approaches to the Afghanistan conundrum:

1. Use carrots and sticks with the Pakistanis to deprive the Taliban of their sanctuaries;
2.  Put pressure on the Afghan government to get its act together by announcing a reasonable withdrawal date; or
3.  Increase troop levels in order to create a breathing space for the Afghan government to improve both its governance and the performance of its military.

All of these have been tried, and all have failed.  #1 will only really work if you can substantially improve relations between Pakistan and India–good luck with that. Obama tried #2, only for the Taliban to regain ground, as one would have predicted.  #3, otherwise known as “nation-building,” has been going on since 2001, with mediocre success at best.

The “new” Trump plan contains elements of all of these, but is fundamentally a “nation-building” approach, whether he acknowledges it or not.  He is apparently pretending that “nation-building,” in the past, has been an overly idealistic effort to bring democracy to Afghanistan in lieu of genuinely effective government, but that is not the reality of the situation.

In all likelihood, what persuaded him to take up “nation-building,” in spite of his negative comments during the campaign, was his even stronger fear of “losing” in Afghanistan.  That’s pathetic.

Refusing to lift the debt ceiling, and thereby defaulting on our obligations, would result in a decline in American credibility throughout the world, higher interest rates, and unnecessary economic turbulence.  You would think that avoiding that outcome would constitute “winning.”  However, Trump is all about himself, not the condition of the country, so standing firm in the face of congressional action of which he does not completely approve could be viewed as asserting his authority in the process, and thereby “winning.”

Which of these definitions of “winning” will he choose?  I wish I had more confidence in #1.

Israel has chosen to stay out of the civil war in Syria, presumably on the basis that having two groups of people who hate you killing each other can’t be a bad thing.  That approach works as long as the war continues.  Now, however, it appears that Hezbollah is going to emerge as a clear winner.  Its troops are battle-tested and better armed than ever.

Unlike Hamas, which is a flea bite, Hezbollah is a serious military threat, and it is backed by Iranian missiles.  The only thing that would make matters worse would be an Iranian nuclear capability;  that was eliminated by the deal with Obama.

And so, when the next Lebanese war comes (as it will), Israel will have plenty of reasons to thank the Great Satan Obama for his foresight in making the deal that Netanyahu so openly despised.  If Trump chooses to tear up the deal, the war will come sooner rather than later, and it will probably involve us as an active participant.

Trump and Bannon clearly agree that white nationalism is a political winner for the administration, because the left’s indignant reaction to it creates an equivalent backlash from the base.  If the objective is simply to remain in power with a 30 percent approval rating, they’re right, but can you actually govern that way?

Sucking up to Nazis is not exactly a good way to get Susan Collins’ vote on Obamacare repeal.  Offending PBPs and moderate Democrats is not going to increase your leverage over legislation.  It may be emotionally gratifying, but tactically, it’s a mistake.

At this point, there are only two ways to turn the ship around:  a tax cut and a short, successful war.  Look for both of these in the reasonably near future.

While Bannon’s departure got most of the headlines, it was equally noteworthy that Carl Icahn left, too.  The PBPs haven’t gotten their tax cut yet, and they find white nationalism embarrassing.  They are clearly souring on the administration.

So if the leading lights of the Reactionaries and the PBPs are gone, who is left? The military.  And what does that mean?

The biggest impact will be on foreign policy;  Trump is now surrounded by people who support an aggressive conventional policy, not an unconventional one. There will be no diplomatic revolution, and no openings to Russia, although Trump’s mouth will continue to present an issue with our allies.  On the domestic front, the generals have no particular agenda other than stability and coherence, so you can expect more of the same:  Reactionary social policies and PBP economic policies.

In the end, Bannon wasn’t either Thomas Cromwell or Thomas More;  he was just a damp firecracker.  Now he is slithering back to Breitbart and declaring war on “globalists” and “cuckservatives” in Congress, the media, and the administration.  What does it mean?

Here’s what I think:

1.  Bannon made the same mistake that many conservative pundits made;  he assumed that there was a coherent “Trumpist” doctrine and that he was the keeper of the flame.  “Trumpism” is about the erratic impulses of the man on golf cart, period.  Nothing about that will change; it will just make even less sense.
2. Trump was reportedly concerned that Bannon would be more dangerous outside than inside the administration.  He might be right;  Breitbart is going to turn up the temperature at just the time when we need it least.  The odds on a government shutdown, and possibly even a default, just got worse.