In response to comments I receive fairly frequently:
It can be hard to believe at times, but in 1960, the vast majority of the people I have identified as reactionaries were Democrats, and the GOP had a reasonably legitimate claim to be the “Party of Lincoln.” Obviously, times have changed. How did it happen?
It happened in stages, as follows:
1. The Sixties: The Civil Rights Movement, Culture Wars, and Vietnam: Democratic leaders were responsible for a massive escalation of the Vietnam War, but the rank-and-file had turned against it by the end of the decade. Nixon continued the war (at least for a while), embraced the “Silent Majority,” and promoted “law and order” against the claims of the counterculture and African-Americans. The identification of the GOP with white racism, conservative cultural values, and a militaristic foreign policy began here, although the trend did not become irreversible until later.
2. The Eighties: Reagan, the Religious Right, and Swagger: While Reagan did little to push the agenda of the religious right, he made the tie between them and the GOP explicit for the first time. His swaggering style remains an essential part of the GOP brand to this day.
3. The Nineties: Rise of the Conservative Media: Right-wing radio, cable channels, and internet sites reduced the effectiveness of nonpartisan gatekeepers and permitted reactionaries to live in an information bubble. While Clinton, due to his unusual background and political skills, managed to win a few states in the Deep South, by 2000, the electoral map had ossified: Al Gore, a Southerner running in a time of peace and an economic boom, could not win a single Southern state.
4. The 21st Century: Failure of the GOP Elites; Globalization Bites; More Culture War Losses: The GOP establishment lost credibility with reactionary voters as a result of the failure of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. The election of an African-American President with little apparent sympathy for rural lifestyles and values polarized the voters to an even greater degree than before. Job losses in traditional industries, wage stagnation, and growing inequality due to globalization and technological change made things even worse for white workers. And then there was gay marriage. . .
When you add Trump’s celebrity and unusual talents to this stew of racism, frustrated cultural conservatism, overt nationalism, and elite failure, you wind up with the poisonous mixture that is being offered to us today.
Reactionaries think so, but you would have a very hard time finding an objective basis for that opinion. Unemployment is below five percent; the market is over 18,000; inflation is basically nonexistent; we’re not engaged in any large scale ground wars anywhere in the world; crime is far below its previous peak; and the rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse are stable at worst. And yet, the far right-wing press tells us that the apocalypse is at hand, and that Trump is our only hope of avoiding it. What is going on here?
I will be discussing this issue from a variety of angles this week. The bottom line is fairly simple, however; some elements of white Christian America view themselves as a severely oppressed minority in a country run by and for foreigners, people of color, atheists, and gays. In their view, this is the last chance of the traditional rulers of the nation to take their country back from a government which (with the aid of big business and the MSM) not only does not represent their interests, but actively works against them.
Sympathy for the White Man
Please allow me to introduce myself.
I’m a man whose time has passed.
I ran the world for a long, long time.
Made some money, and kicked some ass.
I was around when men were owned.
Ruled the roost in my home, too.
Under attack now on every flank
And I don’t know what to do.
Good to meet you.
Hope you heard my plea.
The one thing you can do for us
Vote for the GOP!
Stuck around in Selma
When some black folks started calling for a change.
Killed some leaders and some followers
As the nation screamed with rage.
I ran the land; kept the whip in hand.
Now I’m on my knees; time to take a stand.
Good to meet you.
Hope you heard my plea.
The one thing you can do for us
Vote for the GOP!
Parody of “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones.
My wife and I spent the last few weeks watching all three seasons of “Borgen,” a Danish TV drama about the triumphs and travails of a female politician who becomes prime minister, runs a reasonably successful government, loses the subsequent election, retires, returns to politics as the head of a new party, and becomes the kingmaker in the next Danish parliament. It is the best TV program on politics I’ve ever seen; the characters are well-rounded and sympathetic, and most of the plots are credible (there are some gratuitous soap opera moments in the last season).
Here’s what I took away from it:
1. Being a successful politician is hell on your personal life. There are so many loyalties to juggle: to your own vision; your spouse; your children; your party; and your country. It isn’t easy to live any kind of a normal life.
2. Being a successful politician requires a wide range of unusual personal qualities. These include empathy, judgment, charm, intelligence, and ruthlessness, not necessarily in that order.
3. Making meaningful change is difficult. There is always a crise du jour to distract you from your program.
4. Electing Donald Trump would be the equivalent of voting the fictional Danish “Freedom Party” into power. Or, to use a real world analogy, it would be as if UKIP replaced the Conservatives as the principal right-wing party in the UK.
5. If Hillary Clinton had half the charm of Birgitte Nyborg, the election would already be over. No elaboration necessary.
The entire world will have to deal with the effects of climate change, but it will affect different areas in different ways. Here are my predictions:
The United States has always protected South Korea against North Korea, even though North Korea did not present a direct threat to us, because South Korea is a nation with whom we have shared values. While we undoubtedly have the capability to annihilate the North Korean regime, we have never attempted to do so, because North Korea could inflict untold damage on South Korea while the fighting is ongoing.
By all accounts, the North Korean government is making progress in its ability to deliver a nuclear weapon that can reach the US mainland. They might well reach that threshold during the first few years of a Trump Administration.
To Trump, South Korea isn’t an ally; it is an economic competitor that “beats us at trade” by selling us exploding phones, while benefiting from our military protection. We have no moral obligation to consider the well-being of such nations; it is, of course, “America First.”
Do you think President Trump would be deterred by the prospect of millions of South Korean dead if he believed a preemptive attack on North Korea was necessary to prevent them from building a weapon that could reach the US?
You can see where this is going. As John Madden would say, “BOOM!”
If you live in South Korea, and you’re not worried about this, you’re making a mistake.
Sure, the federal government has been largely dysfunctional since 2010, due mostly to vandalism caused by the GOP. Fortunately, our system of limited government at the federal level means that a vacuum can be filled by state and local authorities and by the private sector. Unlike nations with strong men, therefore, we can survive mediocre or worse leadership in Washington.
Otherwise, our future is bright, particularly relative to the other countries that I analyzed earlier this week. We have a looming demographic problem, but it is smaller than our competitors’. Our culture is vibrant. We have friendly neighbors (at least as long as Trump isn’t President). Our economy has consistently grown faster than the EU’s in the recent past. I doubt there is any world leader, including Xi, who wouldn’t gladly trade his problems for ours.
Our biggest challenge, in my opinion, is to maintain our position as the guarantor of a rules-based system of international relations without succumbing to imperial overstretch. That will be the subject of a post in the reasonably near future.
So now I turn to the US.
Our politics sure are a mess.
But our people are strong
So as we move along
Our future should be a success.
Many Americans believe in a caricature version of France: a dying country with a huge welfare state where nobody can be bothered to do any work. In reality, the size of the French welfare state is fairly unremarkable, its workers are very productive, and the country, relative to all of the EU nations except Germany, is growing at a reasonable pace.
And there lies the rub. Germany, as a result of labor market reforms proposed by an ostensibly socialist government about fifteen years ago, is growing much faster than France. The EU was essentially designed as a partnership between France and Germany, but everyone recognizes that it is an unequal relationship now, and that is an affront to the French public.
The problem with France is not the size of its welfare state, but its labor regulations, which have discouraged investment and created two classes of workers: one (mostly old workers) with excessive protections; and a second (mostly young) with none. You would think that the young workers would rise up and attempt to overthrow this regime, but they have embraced it in the hope that they, too, will benefit from it when their time comes.
The French people are perfectly aware of this situation, but have been unable to do anything about it. What typically happens is that the government (both left and right-wing) proposes some very moderate reforms, the unions go out on the street, the reforms get watered down even further, and the result is weak legislation which does little good, but creates suspicion about the government’s ultimate motives when the cycle begins anew.
What does this mean for 2030? Reforms are clearly necessary, but significant change in France typically happens in convulsions. Expect at least one such convulsion between now and then–possibly shortly after the 2017 election, which could be won by Le Pen.
I turn my attention to France.
Young workers there don’t stand a chance.
The people are mad.
Some change wouldn’t be bad.
But the leadership seems in a trance.
Trump puts himself forward as the spokesman for the white working class, but his tax plan is a gigantic giveaway to–wait for it–people like himself! Workers only get the crumbs off his table.
Why isn’t there more public discussion about this?
It’s obvious that the focus of politics in the UK over the next several years will be on Brexit, nationalism, and constitutional change. A major split in the Labour Party is highly likely, and the Conservatives could follow sometime thereafter.
But what of the country in 2030? Here are my predictions:
1. Scotland will leave the UK, and Northern Ireland may, as well. The domination of Scottish politics by the SNP reminds me a bit of the situation with the Home Rulers in Ireland around the turn of the 20th Century. I don’t think Scottish independence is a good idea, but it isn’t up to me. Irish reunification, on the other hand, would largely be the result of positive changes in the Republic, and would be welcome.
2. There will be a single major center-right and center-left party in 2030. The right-wing party will be the Conservatives, simply because conservatism is an idea grounded in human psychology that never really goes out of style. The left-wing party probably will bear little resemblance to the current Labour Party, which is largely an anachronism. The first-past-the-post system essentially dictates that, over the long run, minor parties will collapse into the larger ones.
3. Britain will remain close to Europe, and will be a cosmopolitan, dynamic society. It was the older people in the UK who voted Leave; they will be far less of a factor in 2030. Young people in Britain want a multi-cultural society, and they will get it.
The big remaining question is what name will be given to the remnants of the UK? One thing is for sure: it won’t be Former United Kingdom. I’m betting on Britain, without the Great.
The nation they call the UK.
Its parties are in disarray.
Labour’s likely to split.
Brexiteers pitching fits.
Times are changing; that’s all you can say.
Greg Mankiw is what passes for a reasonable, sober right-wing economist these days. After reading his op-ed in the NYT on Sunday, I can only say that the bar has been set really, really low.
Mankiw makes the case for abolishing the estate tax by reference to two hypothetical rich families, one of which is spendthrift, and the other is frugal. He argues that it is unfair for the spendthrift family to pay a lower overall tax rate, when you consider consumption, income, and estate taxes, than the frugal family. He also contends that there are better mechanisms to fight inequality, such as the abolition of the carried interest loophole and limits on deductions, than the estate tax.
Here are my reactions to his arguments:
1. The primary purpose of the estate tax is to avoid the creation of wealthy dynasties. For reasons best known to him, Mankiw focuses exclusively on the impact to the dead members of the family; he doesn’t seem to care that their successors, under his regime, inherit huge fortunes and do not have to work for a living.
2. The estate tax is economically efficient. Relative to income taxes, the estate tax creates fewer burdens on one’s incentive to work. It also provides a guaranteed pot of resources from which the tax can be paid.
3. Tax policy is not a morality play. Mankiw appears to accept the Teutonic view that saving is always good, and consumption is evil. In a world in which corporations are sitting on mountains of cash because they don’t see sufficient demand for their products in the future, this attitude does not make sense.
4. The alternatives he cites for fighting inequality would be much less effective. The carried interest loophole only applies to hedge fund workers, and plutocrats do not rely primarily on itemized deductions to maintain their fortunes.
I agree with his point that it is not good policy for the thresholds and the rate of the tax to oscillate wildly. I don’t expect, or advocate for, substantial changes to the system that exists today. I do not, however, believe that the abolition of the tax makes any sense, except to billionaires who think that the solution to the problem of cash mountains is to make them even larger.