Cromwell

Looking forward to meeting the Queen, even though she’s not a ten!  Hope I get to sit next to Kate.

When I was a kid, I remember buying a book of Wizard of Id cartoons entitled “The Peasants Are Revolting.”  The king’s response to the alarm was “You can say that again.”

That pretty well sums up where the Trump Administration stands today.  It is going to be a recurring theme until Trump either moderates his behavior (don’t hold your breath) or replaces several thousand federal workers, which can’t be done in a day.

There is no doubt that Trump is determined to provoke a crisis with the Chinese over the trade deficit.  Whether he succeeds or not remains to be seen (I’m skeptical).  The question for the day is, what can he reasonably hope to accomplish?  After all, even the Chinese government can’t require its citizens to buy American products, which, from our perspective, would be the best solution to the problem.

Here are the possibilities:

1.  Currency manipulation:  There was a time when the Chinese were keeping the value of the yuan artificially low to boost exports, but those days are gone.  In addition, defining currency manipulation is very difficult, because economic initiatives that are primarily intended to accomplish other objectives can have significant collateral implications for the value of your currency.

2.  Anti-dumping measures:  Generally uncontroversial and completely legal, these have been employed by all of our previous Presidents, including Obama. They require time and litigation.

3.  Ending Chinese barriers to American imports:  A legitimate objective pursued, mostly unsuccessfully, by all previous administrations.  This can only be accomplished, if at all, through years of hard work and pressure.  Trump doesn’t have the patience to go this way.

4.  Ending the Chinese government’s ties to industry:  Good luck with that, Jack.  The relationship between the government and business is an important feature of the Chinese political and economic systems.

5.  Managed trade:  There is a precedent for this in Reagan’s deals with Japan over imports in the 1980’s.  I think it will be Trump’s vehicle of choice when the confrontation begins in earnest.

It’s tempting to look at the video of the demonstrations and think that a massive anti-Trump backlash has already begun.  In fact, I suspect that virtually all of these demonstrators voted for Clinton, so Trump can and will ignore them without paying much of a price.

If Chuck Schumer were here today, I would give him the following advice:

1.  Acknowledge that your control over the political climate is very limited.  If we have peace and 4% growth in 2020, Trump is going to be re-elected.  You can’t stop that.  The success or failure of his administration is not in your hands.

2.  Always remember your ultimate objectives.  In the short run, that means limiting the damage to the country to the maximum extent possible.  In the longer run, it means winning in 2018 and 2020.

3.  Don’t forget who your target audience is.   Your damage control audience is about ten GOP senators;  the rest are beyond your reach.  In order to win in 2018 and 2020, you need an energized base and more votes from the center.

4.  Deal with trade-offs on a case-by-case basis.  If you tack to the center, you run the risk of alienating your base;  if you move left, you lose floating voters and moderate GOP senators.  Each issue must be treated on its own merits.  Just remember, however, that relying on mobilizing a huge army of non-voters simply does not work.

5.  Take principled positions, and convince the public that you are fit to govern.  Naked opportunism will inspire neither the base nor the floating voters.

With that in mind, how should the Democrats deal with upcoming issues?  Here are my thoughts:

1.  Is it OK to filibuster the Supreme Court nominee?  Yes, because to give in on such an important matter would frustrate and demoralize the base.  You can justify your position to moderates by alluding to the treatment of the Garland nomination.  The ultimate outcome will be the elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, which, in the long run, is appropriate in any event.

2.  Should all of Trump’s Cabinet nominees be opposed?  No.  Some of them are basically OK, and it would make you look irresponsible and obstructionist. Pick your fights with care.

3.   Should you collaborate with the GOP on entitlement “reform?”  No.  Don’t do anything to own this issue.  The public is on your side here.  If Trump ultimately decides to disregard his promises and betray his working white constituents, that will be on him.

4.  Should you give in to GOP coercive tactics on Obamacare?  No.  There is too much at stake, and the GOP is divided.  Don’t do anything to help them out;  it will only cost you in the long run.

5.  Should you announce your intent to repeal the inevitable regressive tax cut?  TBD.  It depends on the condition of the country at the time of the next campaign.  I would under all circumstances, however, support the reinstatement of the estate tax.

Take Iraq’s oil and use proceeds to build wall.  Better than Iran/Contra!

Outsiders have always found plenty to criticize about America:  the violence; the religiosity; extreme levels of inequality; crass materialism; and our supposed lack of sophistication.  They have always admired us, however, for our openness to new people and ideas.  America was never about blood and soil; the American idea revolved around concepts of tolerance and limited government that could apply to anyone at any time.

Until now.  We’re only a week into the new administration, and it has already thrown away one of our greatest national assets.   Let’s hope the rest of the world sees the demonstrations and realizes this is not a settled issue.

China has a long and distinguished history of innovation and cultural exports, but its soft power today is pretty well limited to pandas, food, and martial arts movies. The government is acutely aware of the problem, but has struggled to solve it. Why?

There are two reasons:

1.  The Chinese language, which provides the gateway to the culture, is very difficult to learn.  It is essentially two languages in one; you have to memorize the characters as well as learn the oral words.  You can’t really put characters on a keyboard.  As a result, parts of the culture are inaccessible to you and me.
2.  The government puts too many limits on freedom of expression to appeal to outsiders.  Would you really want to live in a country that is guarded by the Great Firewall?  Didn’t think so.

In the long run, the best source of Chinese soft power is likely to be what it is today–money.  Of course, as long as Trump is President, none of this will matter much;  he’s the best salesman on the planet for the Chinese system.

After disposing of the North Korean nuclear program, Trump quickly turned his attention to China, whom he had identified as his principal adversary.  While the ostensible cause for concern was the fill islands, the real issue, in his eyes, was the trade deficit, although he had no realistic ideas on how to address it.

The crisis started when Trump, without warning, announced a blockade of the fill islands.  The Chinese leadership, believing that time was on their side, did not relish the thought of a confrontation with the US, but, with emotions running high on the internet, felt obligated to choreograph a response.  For his part, Trump sent a private message to Beijing to the effect that what he really wanted to do was to talk about trade.

The world watched in horror as Chinese ships attempted to ram American vessels and used water cannon to try to break the blockade.  The two nuclear powers appeared to be on the verge of a shooting war.  Neither side used lethal force, however, and the war was averted.

In the end, the issue was apparently resolved when Trump lifted the blockade and agreed to stop sending weapons to Taiwan in exchange for quotas on a variety of imported goods.  In keeping with his usual practice, however, Trump privately promised the Taiwanese government that he would ignore his written commitments and continue the arms sales.  The Chinese government, no strangers to cheating, had anticipated this and nullified the effect of the import quotas simply by selling through middlemen from other countries.

The crisis accomplished nothing.  America was blamed for it throughout the world, and was universally viewed as a rogue nation.  American prestige had never been lower.  From all appearances, Trump did not care.

Barack Obama is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” a phrase he apparently lifted from MLK.  “The arc of history” is a purely Western concept, born in the Enlightenment; medieval Christians would have found it incomprehensible.  The gist of it is that mankind, either by God’s plan or simply through the benefit of experience, is destined to become wiser, more prosperous, and more free over time.

Marxism is based on dialectical materialism, a theory of change over time that is completely consistent with the “arc of history.”  To a Marxist, as to us, time is linear.  The Chinese calendar, on the other hand, runs on a twelve year cycle, which suggests that, rather than improving, the human experience simply repeats itself over and over in different forms.

Leaving aside the fundamental contradiction inherent in a supposedly Marxist state with a cyclical idea of time, the calendar has significant implications for China and its relations with the rest of the world.  China is a very old civilization with periods of greatness, attributed by its people to strong government, interrupted by periods of weakness and anarchy.  The belief that time and events are cyclical undoubtedly made the man-made disasters following the Chinese Revolution easier to bear, because the people knew that things would inevitably turn around at some point.  Furthermore, the Chinese clearly and reasonably believe that the wheel has turned in their favor, and that their nation is bound to regain the predominance it enjoyed prior to the 19th Century, because that is the natural order of things.  It will not be easy for Trump, or anyone else, to persuade them otherwise.

With that, a happy new year to all who observe the Chinese calendar.  In keeping with past practice, the next week will be devoted to topics pertaining to China.

 

I think the time is right to republish this.

                    Another Brick in the Wall, Part Infinity

We don’t need no transfer union.

We don’t need no refugees.

No desperate children at our borders.

Leaders, keep them people out.

Hey! Leaders! Keep them people out.

 

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

 

Parody of “Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2” by Pink Floyd.

Perhaps our biggest advantage over the Chinese, in the long run, is geography; China has Japan, India, Vietnam, the Koreas, and Russia as neighbors, while we have Mexico and Canada.   While our relations with these countries have not always been completely smooth, they have not presented a threat to us for over a hundred years.

Trump’s provocations towards the Mexicans could very well change that equation.  Anti-American feeling is going to become a major consideration in Mexican politics.  Cooperation on refugee and drug issues is likely to wither, and possibly disappear.  The decline in value of the peso will create hardship in Mexico and encourage more illegal immigration.  A leftist with an anti-gringo platform could well win the next presidential election.  We will consequently be faced with a new, serious, and unnecessary problem right on our doorstep.

Surveys have shown that Trump’s core supporters didn’t really believe that he would build the wall, get Mexico to pay for it, or deport millions of undocumented immigrants.  The irony, then, is that the king of “truthful hyperbole” had the opportunity to walk away from his campaign promises in order to maintain the peace, but he has decided instead to take himself both seriously and literally, and the nation will be the worse for it.

Historically, when the US has effectively taken ownership of a failed or failing state, we have tried to fix the problems by throwing huge amounts of resources into the creation of a liberal democratic state.  The results, to put it kindly, have not been very impressive.

Trump doesn’t believe in “nation-building.”  If he is confronted with the need to take military action against a country that harbors terrorists, his plan of action is likely to look like this:

1.  Engage in massive and indiscriminate bombing in order to turn the offending nation into an ash heap.
2.  Give the keys to whatever is left to a local strong man, give him a little bit of moral and material support, and walk away.

In other words, we will be following Putin’s example in Chechnya.

Trump and Reagan have plenty in common:  both were old white guys with a background in show business, limited interest in policy specifics, and an apparently burning desire to recreate an imaginary idyllic past.  Their differences are more significant, however:

1. Reagan was a “shining city on a hill;” Trump is “American carnage.”
2. Reagan didn’t have a thin skin; Trump is defined by his.
3. Reagan’s views were based on a clearly defined ideology; Trump’s only ideology is self-love.
4. Reagan respected liberal democratic values; Trump doesn’t.
5. Reagan had a sense of humor and a grace that even people who didn’t agree with him could admire; Trump doesn’t.
6. Reagan supported our traditional alliances; Trump doesn’t.
7. Reagan’s administration was filled with competent people; Trump’s is a chaotic mess.
8. Reagan didn’t have Twitter and Fox News; Trump, alas, does.

And so, Reagan had “Morning in America,” and Trump–well, you read the title.

The ex-KGB man Vlad Putin.

The ex-USSR he’ll be lootin’.

To befriend him on terror

Is likely an error.

It’s a concept that calls for refutin’.

The EU and NATO, of course, are grounded in the European experience of the 20th Century.  The EU was an attempt to avoid future wars and to promote prosperity and liberal democratic values, while NATO was designed to provide a shield from the totalitarianism and military might of the Soviet Union.  The US was a member of the latter organization and strongly supported the former.

To Trump, this is all ancient history, with no relevance to the contemporary world.  In his eyes, Russia presents no threat to Europe, America, or their shared values;  the EU nations, on the other hand, take advantage of our military protection while beating us at trade.   In addition, their democratic systems and liberal values make them wimpy, ambivalent allies in the war against Islamic extremism. Trump would ask “what have you done for us lately?” and answer “not very much.”

Trump is going to put America for sale to the highest bidder.  If Putin has more to offer than the EU in terms of fighting Islamic terrorists and providing a counterweight to America’s adversaries, then so be it.

Let the auction begin.