Cromwell

In light of the Olympics and the return of the NFL, it is high time for a sports analogy in my political commentary.

There are basically two kinds of NFL quarterback.  The best of the lot (Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady) are playmakers;  the head coach puts the ball in their hands and tells them to find a way to win the game.  Competent, but lesser, quarterbacks are game managers; they are directed to work within the system, avoid mistakes, and let the rest of the team’s talent do the dirty work. Alex Smith and Teddy Bridgewater are classic examples of game managers.

Given his prodigious talents, the 2009-10 Democrat supermajority, and the necessities of the time, Barack Obama was a playmaker.  Given her far different abilities, a growing economy, and the likelihood of a GOP Congress, Hillary Clinton almost certainly will be a game manager, if elected.

And President Trump?  Think Carson Palmer in the NFC Championship game against Carolina.

Can you say “pick six?”

 

The Rio Olympics, day eight.

Michael Phelps’ last performance was great.

USA swim team rules

Over all in the pool.

Usain Bolt has a day left to wait.

Donald Trump doesn’t really care about the Republican Party;  he just sees it as a vehicle for his Presidential ambitions.  The GOP establishment, for its part, is locked in a shotgun marriage that will end abruptly after he loses.  And he will, barring some really compelling assistance from Assange and Putin.

The establishment will try to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the party nominee immediately after the election.  They will hope that Trump will simply vanish from the political scene without any further ado.  Given Trump’s character, that won’t happen;  he will denounce the establishments of both parties, claim that the election was rigged, and call for action in the streets, all of which will be hugely embarrassing to the party leadership and irritating to the GOP’s few remaining moderates.

Will the party split?  Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will do their best to keep the party united by putting the focus on Congressional resistance to Clinton’s agenda. They will probably succeed, but that is not a sure thing.   I would put the odds on a split at 2:1.

The Rio Olympics, last night.

Michael Phelps put up a valiant fight.

US men nip the Serbs;

Women kicked to the curb;

Ledecky just swam out of sight.

If Erdogan is reconsidering his alliances, his analysis would have to go something like this:

1.  The Russian Empire, which Putin is essentially wants to recreate, was the historic enemy of the Ottoman Empire, which is Erdogan’s dream state.
2.  The US and the EU have far more to offer Turkey from an economic perspective than the Russians do.
3.   The US and the EU agree with him that Assad should be removed from power.  Putin is Assad’s chief protector.
4.  On the other hand, Putin doesn’t lecture him about human rights.  In fact, he may aspire to create a political system that looks like Putin’s Russia.

This list strongly suggests that sticking with the West is the better deal, and that he probably just wants to keep his options open to force the EU and the US to stop complaining about him.  If he really wants to make himself a new sultan, and he’s willing to make concessions on Syria, however, the possibility of a realignment cannot be completely dismissed.

The Turkish man named Erdogan.

The Gulenists all want him gone.

He’s tweaking the West

Holds his cards to his chest

It’s hard to see what’s going on.

The Rio Olympics, day six.

Simone shows off her bag of tricks.

Michael Phelps is the boss.

Lochte takes one last loss.

And Ms. Manuel makes Aussies feel sick.

Amidst large demonstrations, some of them violent, Hillary Clinton took the oath of office this morning.  In her speech, she called for unity, emphasized the ties that bind all Americans together, and promised to work with Congressional Republicans to move the country forward.  Her first major policy initiative will be a large infrastructure program with support on both sides of the aisle.

Reactions to the speech were mostly skeptical.  Bernie Sanders supporters expressed concern that the limited legislative program “pandered to Republicans and the donor class.”  Donald Trump called on his voters to continue to demonstrate all over the country against the outcome of a “rigged” election. Mitch McConnell expressed some satisfaction with regard to the moderation of the Clinton agenda, but indicated that his first priority was “to make sure she would be a one term President” and that the best way to accomplish his goal was to obstruct her agenda, regardless of how GOP-friendly it is.  “After all, opposition to Clinton is the only thing that holds our party together, and this approach worked after the 2008 disaster” was his parting remark.

Reform conservatism, in my parlance, is a proposed coalition of Christian Democrats and Reactionaries within the GOP whose primary focus would be on improving the lot of white working class people.  The centerpiece of the program is a tax cut tailored narrowly to workers and middle income people, not the wealthy.  As such, it is anathema to the WSJ and to business interests (i.e., the PBP faction of the party).

The “Reformocons” never had any use for Trump himself, but they viewed his candidacy as a means by which the GOP could wean itself off Reagan and Bush-style tax cuts for rich businessmen.  As things have turned out, however, they have the worst of all possible worlds:  a candidate they view as being dangerous and irresponsible with a tax cut plan that looks like the Bush tax cut on steroids.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that Trump loses big in November.  Is there any future for the Reformocons in the GOP?  I don’t think so, for the following reasons:

1.  Of the 17 GOP Presidential candidates, exactly zero bought into the Reformocon program.  Bush and Rubio incorporated small parts of it in their plans, but they were swamped by huge tax cuts for the donor class.
2.  The WSJ, the Club for Growth, and all of the other GOP enforcers are still out there and baying for blood.  Trump may have defied them to some extent, but he is the exception that proves the rule.
3.  Who is going to vote for the Reformocon program?  To be sure, it would appeal to the economic interests of Reactionaries, but it rejects their nativism, which is more important to many of them than money.  The WSJ isn’t going to fall in line, either.
4.  A big Trump loss in November is going to ignite a civil war within the GOP between Reactionaries complaining about the lack of establishment support and an establishment that attributes the loss to a clearly inadequate candidate.  My guess is that the center of the party will revert back to that old time tax cutting religion, and the Reformocon agenda will be out in the cold.

The Rio Olympics, day five.

Carmelo and friends just survive.

Meanwhile, in the pool

One more Phelps-Lochte duel

And Ledecky’s win streak’s still alive.

It’s early January, 2015.  Donald J. Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, are walking in Central Park, when they run across three men who look like refugees from the Summer of Love.  They appear to be stoned.

DT:  Get out of my way, you losers!  Go get a job!

SM1:  Hail, Trump, King of Casinos!

SM2:  Hail, Trump, King of Reality TV!

SM3:  Hail, Trump, Wall Builder in Chief!

IT:  Dad, these guys are creepy.  Let’s get out of here.

DT:  They may look weird, but they’re right!  I was the King of Casinos!  I’m still the King of Reality TV!  I don’t get the part about the wall building, though.

IT:  Maybe he’s talking about your new high rises.

SM1:  Your fame will soar above the Manhattan skyline.

SM2:  You will be greater, and then less.

SM3:  The media will hang on your every word.

DT:  They already do.  You forget who you’re talking to.

SM1:  The land will be full of terror and trouble.

SM2:  Dark clouds arriving from all directions.

SM3:  Greatness comes from the most unlikely places.

IT:  This sounds like a Batman movie.  Maybe a new Sharknado.

DT:  No, it’s starting to make some sense.  What about the wall?

SM1:  The enemy is everywhere.

SM2:  Beware the land of tacos.

SM3:  A fortress without a moat will never stand.

DT:  I get it!  Only I can save this country from Obama, Hillary, and their illegal immigrant friends!  I’ll run for President!

IT:  What about me?

SM1:  Your children will inherit a great empire, but you are doomed to be sane, normal, and bland.

DT:  At least no one can say that about me.

SM2:  No arguments on that score.

The Trumps head back to Trump Tower.

 

As I’ve noted before, the GOP establishment is essentially treating Trump as the representative of a third party with whom they have a tactical alliance;  he’s not a real Republican, and they aren’t responsible for him.  One of the biggest questions in this election is whether the public will accept that narrative.

Trump is getting more outrageous and authoritarian each day.  That is an inherent characteristic of his strong man candidacy;  once you start down that path, there is no logical place to stop.  The more he deviates from democratic norms, the more plausible the establishment’s argument becomes;  there will be millions of Clinton voters who are supporting, not her or her platform, but the democratic process against an ineffectual would-be strong man.  It is perfectly possible, therefore, that a smashing Clinton win could be accompanied by GOP victories in key House and Senate races, and that Clinton 45 will be confronted by a Congress and an electorate which can reasonably insist that she has no mandate for liberal policy initiatives.

When Bernie Sanders talks about a “rigged” political system, he means that the system is subject to undue influence by wealthy donors.  The remedy for this is the “revolution;”  a movement for and by disillusioned poor and middle-class people to change the Constitution, to vote out the agents of the plutocrats, and to create a larger welfare state.  As I’ve noted on many occasions, this view of the political process is impractical, flawed, and simplistic, but at least it has the merit of being logically consistent.

Trump stole the word “rigged” from Sanders in an effort to appeal to his voters. Being a plutocrat himself, he can’t possibly object to the impact of money on the system, so what does he mean by “rigged?”  Here are some possibilities, and my reactions:

1.  In the most narrow, literal sense, it is impossible for anyone to “rig” a Presidential election, which is run by thousands of state and local officials, a majority of whom are probably Republicans, even in swing states.
2.  It is an article of faith among Reactionaries that they represent a majority of the American people, and that their losses in elections must therefore be attributable to voter fraud–hence, the GOP’s emphasis on voter fraud legislation.  There is not a shred of evidence for this, but Reactionaries don’t believe in letting the facts get in the way of a good story.  It is possible, therefore, that Trump thinks that the federal judiciary is “rigging” the election by striking down voter exclusion laws.
3.  Trump complains constantly that the MSM and the establishments of both parties treat him unfairly.  In other words, he wants the benefits of being an “outsider,” but he doesn’t think the “insiders” have a right to fight back.  In the final analysis, I suspect that is what he means by a “rigged” election:  one in which the public is misled to vote against him by the corrupt entrenched powers and the liberal MSM.

 

The Rio Olympics, day four.

Americans can’t ask for more.

A Magnificent Five

Kept a gold streak alive

And Katie and Phelps slammed the door.

There once was a Donald named Trump.

He’s currently taking his lumps.

The GOP brass

Think that he’s just an ass

And his poll numbers are in a slump.