Cromwell

The GOP nominee Don.

He’s feeling a bit put upon.

They’ve followed the money.

I don’t think it’s funny

That his chances of winning aren’t gone.

The relationship between China and Taiwan resembles the relationship between the US and Cuba:  both situations involve a large island off the coast of a much larger nation with a significantly different political and economic system.  In both cases, the island has been a major thorn in the side of the larger nation.  The difference, however, is that no one claims that Cuba is legally part of the US.

Ten or twenty years ago, it was relatively easy to imagine the Chinese and Taiwanese governments agreeing on a formula by which the Republic of China would cease to formally exist for purposes of dealing with the outside world, but would retain considerable autonomy for domestic purposes.  Since then, however, the independence of Hong Kong has been eroded, a significant portion of the Taiwanese population has embraced independence as an ultimate objective, and the Chinese government has become more repressive at home and more assertive in the South China Sea.  The odds against a peaceful solution to the issue have grown accordingly.

The costs and risks of taking or annihilating Taiwan currently outweigh its benefits, from the perspective of the Chinese leadership.  That situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future even if Chinese military power and assertiveness continue to grow at their current rate.  On the whole, therefore, the prospects for a satisfactory negotiated solution for the Taiwan issue, while not good, remain better than those for Hong Kong.

The GOP nominee Don

Had no income to pay taxes on.

He insists that he’s rich

But the truth is a bitch.

In the nineties, his fortune was gone.

The real meaning of the NYT story isn’t that Trump uses the system and puts the burden of supporting government on ordinary citizens;  everyone knew that, and he actually takes pride in it.  No, the significance of the story is that the supposedly omniscient businessman lost a billion dollars in a year.  That’s billion, with a b.

Of course, Trump would say that it wasn’t his fault, and that he just got involved with Atlantic City casinos at the wrong time, but the evidence shows that the other casinos didn’t do as poorly as his did, and in any event, why couldn’t he foresee that if he is as brilliant as he says?

The equivalent to losing a billion dollars as President would be starting and losing a nuclear war.  That’s a risk no reasonable person should be prepared to take.

Based on his experience doing business with a few Chinese bankers, Donald Trump feels comfortable stating unequivocally that China is in complete control of events in North Korea, and can change the regime’s behavior at a moment’s notice.  As with most things, he is clueless on this subject.  The relationship between China and North Korea is complex and fraught.

The Chinese government decided a long time ago, and with substantial reason, that while the North Korean regime was dangerous and irresponsible, every alternative to it was even worse.  The North Koreans know this, and consequently pay little attention when the Chinese try to tell them what to do.

While the nature of the regimes is obviously very, very different, the China/North Korea relationship reminds me a bit of the relationship between the US and the Netanyahu government, which knows it has enough support in Congress and with the American public to ignore any attempt by Obama to leverage aid and diplomatic support for moderation in the West Bank and Gaza.

The US is often accused of trying to encircle China, but in the case of North Korea, we would welcome any developments that would increase Chinese influence. Unfortunately, any North Korean official who becomes too cozy with the Chinese is viewed as a threat to the regime and is likely to wind up being executed.  A moderate North Korean regime under Chinese control is, therefore, not likely in the foreseeable future.

Imagine that you are Prime Minister Abe of Japan.   Your country’s economy is stagnant, your population is aging rapidly, your debt is reaching the stratosphere, and you rely on the US for protection. China, your neighbor, is much larger, unfriendly, and growing far more rapidly. What do you do?

You have three choices:

1.  Bury your head in the sand and hope the problems go away by themselves;
2.  Attempt to persuade the population to accept large scale immigration and huge increases in the defense budget in order to deter potential aggression from China; or
3.  Make the best deal you can with China as soon as possible.  Given the history of China’s treatment of vassal states,  it is realistic to think you can preserve your political and economic systems and most of your independence as long as you toe the line on a few foreign policy issues that are important to the Chinese.

Abe is trying a highly watered down version of #2, but has had very limited success.  In the long run, my best guess is that #3 will be the choice.

Today is the 67th anniversary of the proclamation of the creation of the PRC: China’s national holiday.  I will be observing it this week with a series on China and its neighbors, starting with Hong Kong, which, as we know it, is doomed.

Why do I say that?

Hong Kong is an incredibly intense, vibrant, capitalist city.  Virtually every square inch of it is covered by a mall of some sort.  When I went to Shanghai, I described it as two parts Manhattan, one part Las Vegas, and one part Disneyland;  Hong Kong is that times ten.  I would guess that everything in the world is for sale there, and I mean that in the most literal sense.

When the Chinese leadership made the deal with the UK to regain control of Hong Kong, they agreed to leave it more or less as is, because it was the only goose in town, and they didn’t want to kill the golden egg.  Today, a much more powerful and prosperous China has Shanghai as an alternative financial center, so the economic value of Hong Kong to the leadership has diminished, and is decreasing further over time.

No one who watched the events in 1989 has any doubts that the government would rather turn Hong Kong into a cinder than permit it to evolve into a genuinely democratic state.  That includes the vast majority of the residents.  And so, while some of the younger residents in particular will engage in very public fights for more rights, the trend will run slowly, but inexorably, in the other direction.  In the long run, you can’t have a country with two different political systems, and the one that will prevail will be the one on the mainland.

For all of his many appalling qualities, Trump isn’t Hitler.  But what if he were? Would evangelical Christian leaders still convince themselves that he is a “baby Christian?”  Would self-interest and tribal ties still cause Ted Cruz to endorse him?  Would Marco Rubio say that he agreed with Hitler about some things, but that he disagreed with Hillary on everything?  Would Paul Ryan still grudgingly enable him? Would Giuliani and Christie still have his back?

Obviously, I’m just speculating here, but in my opinion, the answer to all of those questions is yes.  The aforementioned GOP leaders would rather put the nation, and actually the whole world, in mortal peril than live with a Democrat as President.

 

Putin’s modus operandi, when he invades a country in one way or another, is to govern through the use of local strong men, not by democratic means.  This obviously mirrors his own system, but it also means that he doesn’t have to engage in the kind of expensive (and frequently futile) nation-building that we do.  He simply gives the keys to some thug,  gives him a limited amount of aid, and tells him to sink or swim; if the former, he can always be replaced.  That limits Russia’s exposure and gives Putin a measure of plausible deniability.

Donald Trump, for similar reasons, clearly embraces this approach.  It is not too difficult to imagine President Trump cutting a deal with Putin in which the US and Russia agree to collaborate to keep dictators in power in the Middle East, and perhaps elsewhere, on the ground that the alternatives only result in terrorism. You can even imagine a scenario in which Russia and the US intervene militarily to keep Sisi in power in the face of a popular revolt in Egypt.

After the Napoleonic Wars, Russia, Prussia, and Austria formed what was called the “Holy Alliance” in an effort to keep liberalism and nationalism under control throughout Europe.  It would be fair to call the prospective Trump/Putin reactionary collaboration the “Unholy Alliance.”

 

The ex-KGB man Vlad Putin.

His methods aren’t too high-falutin’.

He invaded Ukraine

Caused great sorrow and pain

If his flag flies, don’t bother salutin’.

There were plenty of reasons to prefer Obama to Clinton in 2008;  one of them was the notion that the fundamental corruption of the Clintons was an insuperable obstacle to meaningful dialogue with Republicans.  Under this theory, Obama would be willing and able to reach out to the GOP, and civility would return to our politics.

I subscribed to that notion at the time.  I have never regretted my support for Obama, but events have proven the Clintons correct on the civility issue;  it is clear now that the Republicans consider all Democratic presidents to be equally illegitimate, because they don’t represent a majority of what they consider to be “real Americans”.  And yes, there is a web of right-wing media outlets, donors, think tanks, and politicians which could plausibly be described as a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

During the 2012 conventions, there was lots of talk from Republicans about what an ogre Obama was, and how much easier it was to do business with Bill Clinton in the good old days.  I predicted then that everyone would forget those statements by 2016.  Does anyone remember that now?  Guess not.

 

Alexander Hamilton supported the federal assumption of the states’ war debt and the payment of all creditors, including speculators, at face value because he knew the United States would never be a great power unless it enjoyed the confidence of the investing public.  He was right;  today, faith in the stability of the United States underpins the financial system of the entire world, and Hamilton is a Broadway star.

Donald J. Trump, the “King of Debt,” has openly mused about requiring the owners of US government debt to take haircuts, because that is what he did in his business.  The impact of such statements on world opinion and financial markets can easily be imagined.

Jefferson and Trump:  who would have imagined them as allies?  Not Jefferson, surely.

Everyone is aware of Trump’s plan to withdraw from the WTO and impose large tariffs on Chinese goods unless the Chinese agree to do something (exactly what isn’t clear, since they aren’t trying to depress the value of the yuan) to eliminate our trade deficit.  The threat won’t work, and will lead to economic disaster, as I have written previously.

There is more to the story than that, however.  Since Trump views Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan as economic competitors rather than allies, it is likely that he will leave them to their own devices, which probably means returning to their previous condition as Chinese vassal states.  In addition, by turning the US into a purely self-interested rogue nation rather than the stable underpinning of the world’s economic system, he will be encouraging the rest of the world to look to China for responsible leadership.

Strangely,  I don’t remember seeing anything about making China great again on his hat, but that is exactly what he will be doing.  But look on the bright side;  our Great Wall will be bigger than theirs.

A conservative is, by definition, someone who distrusts change.  The GOP claims to be a conservative party, but its nominee plans to disregard longstanding alliances, tear up our trade agreements, ignore the looming effects of climate change, and violate international law.

The Trump program promises not continuity, or even moderate change, but chaos.  If you are a genuine conservative, you have to vote for Clinton.

To the extent that there is an intellectually coherent case for Trump, as opposed to nostalgia or blind rage about social change, it revolves around his claim to be a brilliantly successful businessman.  Reasonable people can disagree about whether Trump is, in fact, a tremendous success, and about whether running a business is a fair analogy to running a government (I have doubts about the former, and would adamantly deny the latter).  What is not open to debate, however, is that his particular businesses in no way resemble the federal government.

Trump basically does two things:  build and operate high rise buildings and resorts; and sell his name as a brand.  His companies are run by himself and his family;  as a result, he can change course and make deals at a moment’s notice, without taking input or considering the interests of people outside his inner circle.  That suits his erratic method of decisionmaking perfectly.

The federal government is not like that.  It makes millions of decisions affecting the interests of the entire nation every day.  It is subject to procedural rules that are intended to guarantee fairness at the expense of speed.  Changing its course is a difficult process.  Comparing it to Trump’s organization is like comparing a speedboat to the Queen Mary 2.

Trump isn’t interested in the nuts and bolts of governing;  he just wants to jet around the world, be the country’s dealmaker-in-chief, and get on TV every night. In other words, he would try to run the nation the way he runs his companies. Since that can’t possibly work, the actual task of governing would probably fall to Mike Pence, because, in the final analysis, someone has to do it.