Cromwell

Two program notes:

1.  I’m a bit tired of writing about Trump for the moment, so Cromwell, for this week, will be a Trump-free zone.  Don’t worry; he’ll be back next week.
2.  This marks the inauguration of a new feature:  Pop Music Monday.  It will last until I exhaust it.

While the British Invasion took place over fifty years ago, it is still very arguable that The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and the The Who remain the most important and influential bands in rock history.  How do they stack up against their classical equivalents?

1. The Beatles:  If you don’t believe The Beatles were a miracle, consider this: George Harrison, a brilliant lead guitarist and songwriter who is in the Hall of Fame in his own right, was the third most important member of the band.  How can you account for that?   I can’t, and you can’t, either.

The Beatles were terrific musicians and excellent lyric writers.  Their ability to combine a stunningly wide range of musical influences and modern technology, with the assistance of George Martin, was off the charts.  To me, however, the most impressive thing about them is that they never wrote bad songs, and they made it look easy.  Take any Beatles song you want, and you would probably be happy singing it in the shower.

Classical equivalent:  Mozart

2.  The Rolling Stones:  The Stones created a sound grounded in American blues and stuck with it throughout the decades.  Their formula consists of a rock solid rhythm section, two guitarists who manage to play off each other in a way that no other band has been able to emulate, and a lead singer with a dynamic presence and an exquisite sense of rhythm.  A Stones song from the sixties and the nineties sound pretty much the same, and they’ll both be great.

Classical equivalent:  Bach

3.  The Who:  Pete Townshend essentially invented the soaring, operatic form of rock and roll, and was clever enough to mesh it with contemporary youth culture. Without The Who, it is difficult to imagine Bruce Springsteen, U2, and Florence + The Machine.

Unlike The Beatles, Townshend wrote plenty of crappy songs.  There are times when you can practically hear him straining to fit the lyrics in the music.  At their best, however, Who songs have an unmatched emotional resonance that will live on for a very long time.

Classical equivalent:  Beethoven

History shows us that after eight years of rule by one party or the other, the electorate is generally pretty bored and dissatisfied, regardless of the performance of the incumbent, and leans towards a change.  It thus behooves the party out of power to pick someone who is as inoffensive as possible in order to take advantage of the odds.

2000 is a good example.  While it may seem quaint now, George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” with a “humble” foreign policy.  Never mind what we actually got; this was a message that had plenty of appeal to the center.

In 2016, the GOP is set to nominate Donald Trump. So much for learning the lessons of history.

Hey, nobody said these guys were smart.

In 2008, Obama won the nomination with a coalition of African-Americans and young white liberals. Clinton tended to win the states with a high concentration of older white people.  In 2016, Clinton largely flipped the switch by winning an extremely high percentage of the African-American vote, just as Obama had in 2008.  While the most visible Sanders supporters were young white liberals, Bernie also did very well in states in which the electorate was predominantly older white people.  The best example of this phenomenon is West Virginia; it went overwhelmingly to Clinton in 2008 and to Sanders in 2016.

What is going on here, and what does it mean?

It means that there is still a right-wing component of the Democratic Party that engages in white male identity politics in some of our red states.  It also means that there is less support for Bernie’s left-wing agenda throughout the country than you would think when you watch the news and see video of his young, idealistic supporters.  And, therefore, it should not be assumed that the Democratic Party would adopt Bernie’s platform in 2020 if Clinton loses in 2016.

Throughout most of the middle of the 19th Century, the UK was able to stand alone, as there was a rough balance of power on the continent, and the strength of its navy was unrivaled.  This was referred to as “splendid isolation.”  The rise of Germany and the growth of its navy after 1870, however, upset the balance of power and made the UK much more vulnerable.  Upon belatedly discovering that it had no allies on which to rely for help with colonial disputes in particular, the British government was compelled to edge towards, and ultimately join, the alliance that became known as the Triple Entente.

You might well say that conditions are different now, because, even after Brexit, the UK would be protected by NATO and its own nuclear weapons, and that there is no military threat analogous to that of the German army and navy.  I would agree with that, but the present state of affairs promises its own difficulties.  The UK may well break up if Brexit passes.  Trade with Europe figures to become substantially more difficult, as will relations with the Republic of Ireland.  And the UK’s leverage on trade issues with the unfriendly nations of Russia and China will be much diminished.  All this to keep out a few Polish plumbers.  Is it really worth it?

“Splendid” isolation, indeed.

For citizens of my home state,

The last week was much less than great.

From shootings to gators

The foul deeds of haters

Will a hurricane next be our fate?

I think it is fair to say that, while faith in Christian dogma is waning somewhat in this country, Christian ethics are still generally accepted.  A discussion of Christian ethics is far too broad for a blog post, but suffice it to say that they include humility, honesty, marital fidelity, compassion, charity, and a sense of fair play. The ultimate sanction, of course, is the Last Judgment.

Anyone who has seen Trajan’s Column and the various arches in the Roman Forum knows that pagans didn’t necessarily believe in keeping their light under a bushel.  That said, classical myths and literature make it clear that the Greeks and Romans understood that humanity was flawed and subject to the whims of higher powers;  the Greeks did invent tragedy, after all.  Narcissus, Achilles, Daedalus, Oedipus–the list of characters would go on and on.

The record unequivocally shows that Trump’s career is a negation of Christian ethics. What is more surprising is that, his business disasters in the 90’s notwithstanding, he doesn’t appear to have any pagan sense of vulnerability and tragedy.  To all outward appearances, he operates in a Nietzschean/Randian moral universe with himself in the middle as the Great Man in History.  I’m guessing that is what ultimately drove him to run for President.

This matters, because it means the normal sources of restraint would not apply to a President Trump.  Respect for the law?  After his comments over the last few weeks?  Patriotism?  He only pledges allegiance to his own greatness.  Christian or pagan ethics?  See the above.

Our system was set up to keep people like Trump in check.  Let’s hope the voters understand that.

 

The NYT and USA Today ran articles on Trump’s businesses last week which made it clear–to nobody’s surprise–that his fortune is derived largely from sharp practices.  From investors in casinos that he used as a personal piggy bank, to contractors he required to take unjustified haircuts, to “students” in Trump University, the story is essentially the same:  get people to trust you with the flash-and-dash of the Trump name, and then screw them over.

If you are one of the millions of Americans who think that the President should represent the values of your country, you have to blanch at the thought of a President Trump.  Trump will have a ready response to this line of reasoning, however;  he will say that the people who were foolish enough to trust him are “losers,” and that we should elect him because he can perform the same magic on other world leaders. In other words, Merkel, Putin, and Xi will be the next pupils at Trump University, and the whole country will benefit from his frauds.

Even if you aren’t troubled by the notion of electing a high-rent grifter as President, you need to know that this approach won’t work, for the following reasons:

1.  A successful grifter requires trust from the people with whom he interacts.  Trump is broadcasting his untrustworthiness in advance.
2.  A successful grifter also has to churn his victims.  That doesn’t work in politics. If you lie, say, to Xi, he will still be there when the transaction is over, and you will have to continue to deal with him on a daily basis.  Good luck with that.
3.  The world economy ultimately operates on the concepts of predictability and trust.  President Trump would be the antithesis of both.  He would make the markets go nuts.

             Still Crazy After All These Years

I met my old rivals on the stage tonight.

They weren’t too glad to see me

‘Cause they lost.

But I needed them beside me

As November’s getting near.

Still crazy after all these years.

Still crazy, still crazy

Still crazy after all these years.

 

I’m not the kind of man to keep my mouth shut long.

My insults make the news from night to day.

And I’ll do my best to keep my message ringing in your ears.

Still crazy after all these years.

Still crazy, still crazy

Still crazy after all these years.

 

Four in the morning.

Caffeine, tweeting.

Running while time stands still.

I never worry.

Why should I?

Clinton’s gonna fade.

 

Now I sit in my tower and I watch the herd.

I plan to be their master by next year.

But the only way I’ll get there is to pander to their fears.

Still crazy after all these years.

Still crazy, still crazy,

Still crazy after all these years.

 

Parody of “Still Crazy After All These Years” by Paul Simon.

 

This one doesn’t fit neatly into the usual left/right divide.  Consider this:

1.  It’s all about Islamic extremism.  Then why did he drive two hours to shoot up a gay nightclub, and why did his father say that gay people set him off?  Do we know for certain that he wouldn’t have done this if he had been a member of the extreme Christian right?  No, we don’t.

2.  No, it’s about hating gays.  Then why did he pledge allegiance to the Islamic State?  Can we be sure that he wouldn’t have found another target eventually even if he didn’t care about gays?  Once again, the answer is no.

3.  It’s about controlling assault weapons.  Having an assault weapon undoubtedly added to the body count, but it didn’t cause the massacre by itself.

Neither party should seek to benefit from this event;  it’s just an American tragedy, and should be treated that way by everyone.  As far as I’m concerned, there are only two lessons to be learned, and they aren’t in any way new:

1.  Having an armed guard doesn’t provide a guarantee that a guy with better weapons and the advantage of surprise can’t cause a massacre.

2.  You can’t stop everyone who wants to be a mass murderer in a free society that happens to be awash in weapons.  Fortunately, history tells us that the incentives for political violence ultimately fade away, either because they are eclipsed by other, more pressing issues, or because the futility of the effort becomes apparent at some point in time.

Another wack job with a gun.

The nation again has been stunned.

Each one of these nuts

Is a kick in the guts

But the battle has barely begun.

As a rule of thumb, as ideological differences between the two final candidates diminish, the likelihood of purely personal attacks goes up.  Since Trump views virtually all of his positions as just opening gambits in negotiations with other politicians and the public, you can expect the focus of his campaign to be on his personal awesomeness and the evils of “Crooked Hillary.”  In other words, it’s going to get really ugly, folks.

Trump probably thinks this kind of battle favors him, based on his affinity for bare-knuckle WWE-style politics, but he’s wrong.   Unlike “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted,” the Clintons have been living with this for over two decades.  There’s nothing he can throw at her that she, and the entire American public, hasn’t heard ad nauseum.   What will be new, fresh, and exciting, on the other hand, will be daily exposes of his unscrupulous business practices and, shall we say, unconventional personal life.

My prediction is that, barring some unforeseen world event that turns things in his favor, Trump will not only lose, but his reputation will be left in cinders, and his business will never recover thereafter.  He will ultimately conclude that the joys of running for President as a carnival barker didn’t justify the risks to his brand.  And that’s just fine with me.

There once was a Donald named Trump.

His poll numbers were in a slump.

His party was beggin’

For a new Ronald Reagan

But he’s more like a new Forrest Gump.

 

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan are sitting in Ryan’s office.  Ryan is behind his big desk; Trump is in a small chair in front of the desk.

PR:  Do you know why you’re here, Donald?

DT:  To win the election!

PR:  And why else?

DT:  I don’t know.  Why?

PR:  Because, as the Republican nominee, you need to know what our party stands for.  We can’t have people thinking we’re just a bunch of racist thugs. We’re the party of Lincoln!

DT:  I’ve heard of him!  He was a winner, and he has a big monument in Washington!  When I’m President, I’ll be an even bigger winner, and have an even bigger monument!  It’ll be huge!

PR:  Whatever.  Let’s begin.  Where do we stand on abortion?

DT:  We’re pro-life, of course.

PR:  Why?

DT:  Who would be against life?

PR:  It’s not that simple.  We support the death penalty, a militaristic foreign policy, and cuts to domestic programs which benefit children and the poor.

DT:  Then what does it mean?

PR:  It means that a fertilized egg is a human being, and anyone who kills it is a murderer.  Of course, after it’s born, it’s on its own.

DT:  That doesn’t seem very logical to me.

PR:  Logic doesn’t enter into it.  It’s in The Bible.  What happens to women who have an abortion?

DT:  Why, they’re punished, of course.

PR:  No.  They’re victims of predatory physicians.  They need to be protected.

DT:  I thought you were encouraging me to treat women as equals, not children.

PR:  Don’t be impertinent.  What about climate change?

DT:  It’s a scam!  A hoax!

PR:  How do you know?

DT:  Who would know more about scams than I do?

PR:  You have a point there.  What about tax cuts?

DT:  I love them!  I proposed a huge one!  Everyone loves it!

PR:  What will it do to the deficit?

DT:  My tax cut will create such a large boom, the deficit will disappear!

PR:  Based on what historical evidence?

DT:  None.  It’s a matter of faith.

PR:  You’re catching on.  What about entitlements?

DT:  I’m entitled to be President, of course!

PR:  No, like Social Security and Medicare.  Why do we want to cut them?

DT:  Thinks for a minute.  Because we need money for my huge tax cut.

PR:  By George, I think he’s got it!

While most American politicians celebrate American exceptionalism (however they may choose to define it), Sanders and Trump, in very different ways, despise it.  For Bernie, the American affinity for limited government has led to a socioeconomic system characterized by rampant inequality, overmighty capitalists, and an inadequate safety net.  He thinks America should aspire to be more “European.”  Trump, on the other hand, believes that our penchant for spreading our values around the world results in our “friends” and enemies alike playing us for suckers.  If Trump wins the election, he will treat our values as being identical to our interests, much as, say, the Russians and Chinese do.

In my view, both of these critiques are horribly overblown, but both contain a kernel of truth.  I agree with Sanders that we need a somewhat larger and clearly more effective safety net, but I don’t believe we need to be as “European” as Denmark. There is room in the world for a society which tolerates a bit more inequality in exchange for more dynamism.  As for Trump’s realism, I would concur that, on occasion, we don’t ask enough of our allies in exchange for our financial and military support;  for example, what do we get from the Baltic states that justifies our commitment to go to war against Russia for them?  On the other hand, it is both practically and morally impossible for us to completely ignore our values in our dealings with the rest of the world, so public opinion would prohibit even a President Trump from doing so.

Trump will give a relatively restrained (for him) speech from a teleprompter at the convention.  It will be uninspiring and completely devoid of any serious intellectual content, but it won’t be overtly racist or outrageous, and there will be no Trump Steaks as props.  The GOP leadership, Fox News, and the WSJ will subsequently celebrate the belated arrival of the “New Trump.”  Euphoria will reign in the GOP camp, unity will be the order of the day, and Trump will get a substantial bounce in the polls.

Until, of course, Trump gets bored with his buttoned-down persona and reverts back to Captain Outrageous.  That should take about two weeks at the max.