Cromwell

Gerson has a column in today’s WaPo in which he laments the willingness of the vast majority of GOP leaders to support Trump in spite of his racism and innumerable other intellectual and moral failings.  To him, this is the beginning of the end of the “Party of Lincoln.”

Gerson is an intelligent and eminently decent man, but I wish he’d get real on this issue.  The GOP stopped being the “Party of Lincoln” when it turned its back on civil rights in exchange for the votes of bigots and electoral control of the Deep South in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Trump didn’t create that condition; he merely exposed it in a way that has made it impossible for anyone to ignore.

Or, to put it another way, you can no longer say with any credibility that Trump and his supporters are just a racist, swaggering, authoritarian caricature version of the GOP created by liberals–they are the GOP.  How else could he get the nomination?

Yes, I know the truth hurts.  If Gerson can’t stand it,  he should go start a third party based on his ideals of freedom and limited government and see how many votes he gets.

During the early and middle 18th Century, the UK’s relationship with Europe was a highly-charged political issue.  The Whigs, by and large, felt that French aggression had to be addressed by sending large subsidies and armies to the continent;  this was particularly necessary after the Hanoverian succession.  The Tories, on the other hand, disliked the large expenses involved in this approach, were skeptical of continental entanglements with unreliable allies, and preferred to put money into the navy to fight the French over colonies.

Does this sound at all familiar?  Three hundred years later, it’s SSDD.

There is a 19th Century angle to this, too, that will be discussed next Friday.

So let us all speak against Brexit.

The vote is the week after next-it.

We’ll watch and we’ll wonder.

To leave is a blunder.

If it passes, can Cameron fix it?

Most of the commentators have analogized the Trump campaign to a reality show, which makes sense, based on his media background.  However, it appears to me that right-wing talk radio has been a much greater influence on Trump’s style: loud; angry; spontaneous; never apologetic; fond of conspiracy theories; loose with facts; and oozing with heavy metal testosterone.

That also sounds a lot like the WWE, which I will discuss another day.

Campaigning as Rush Limbaugh makes sense when you are dealing with an electorate that is effectively limited to a small number of right-wing activists. The problem for Trump is that about 80 percent of the general election voters, including many Republicans, would rather eat ground glass than listen to Rush. If he moderates his style, however, he will forfeit the “authenticity” argument against Hillary.  What is he to do?

That is the central dilemma of his campaign, and he clearly hasn’t figured it out yet.  My guess is that he will veer back and forth and hope to get the best of both worlds.  Expect to see lots of stories about “New Trump” and “Old Trump” in the MSM over the next several months.

 

There once was a Donald named Trump.

His fans were all down in the dumps.

He called out a judge

But then started to fudge.

His road’s full of potholes and bumps.

 

There once was a woman named Hill.

Her victory gave women a thrill.

The Bern’s come and gone

Now she’ll take on the Don.

If she won’t bash him daily, I will.

I don’t know of any conservative columnist or publication that has anything good to say about Donald Trump.  The Economist bashes him on a weekly basis. National Review devoted an entire issue to pieces attacking him.  David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Michael Gerson, George Will, and Jennifer Rubin clearly all despise him.  Even Charles Krauthammer, a dependable source of thoughtless hard right-wing tripe, has been critical.  And yet, there he stands.  What are the pundits to do?

The first thing you need to realize is that, unlike other GOP politicians, conservative columnists are unlikely to pay much of a price for their disloyalty. It is unlikely that many strong Trump supporters read the NYT, or even the Washington Post, so it isn’t as if Brooks, just to use one example, is likely to lose his job for his apostacy.  Being a Trump opponent might reduce the number of parties to which you’re invited, but that’s about it, particularly since even the insiders reconciled to Trump obviously have concerns about him, as well.

If I were in this group, I would avoid commenting directly on the election and just write in the abstract about conservative principles, which is exactly what I think they will do.

Talk radio is a completely different story.  More on that at a later date.

Use your imagination to add the great Lindsey Buckingham guitar solo at the end.

Go Your Own Way

Backing you

Isn’t the right thing to do.

How can I

When you’ve so betrayed me?

If I could

I would turn back the clock.

Give money

To the Bush Super PAC.

 

You can go your own way.

You’re just another loser today.

You can go your own way.

 

Tell me why

Everything turned around.

Building walls

Busting balls is all you want to do.

If I could

Baby, I’d find another guy.

Goodbye now.

I’d pick Clinton over you.

 

You can go your own way.

You’re just another loser today.

You can go your own way.

 

Parody of “Go Your Own Way” by Fleetwood Mac.

It has been a big week for the UBI.  On Sunday, a referendum in Switzerland failed, although the mere fact that the issue was on the ballot was viewed by its supporters as a victory in the long run.  The NYT, The Economist, and Vox.com also had several opinion pieces on the subject.

The pros and cons of the UBI are not much in doubt; many of them are opposite sides of the same coin.  Here they are, in a nutshell:

Pros

1.  If the amount of the stipend is computed properly, it will put a huge dent in poverty.  No further elaboration necessary.

2.  The universal nature of the benefit turns it into an entitlement program, builds a broad constituency for it, and makes it harder to cut.  Just like Social Security, and unlike many other anti-poverty programs that have been vulnerable to GOP cost-cutting plans.

3.  It is relatively cheap to administer, unlike most anti-poverty programs, many of which could be eliminated.  Again, in that respect, it is similar to Social Security.

4.  It avoids the poverty trap.  Because it doesn’t decrease when wages increase, it doesn’t discourage higher paying work in the same way as, say, the EITC.

5.  It leaves more room for individual choice on issues of consumption than most anti-poverty programs.  As a result, it has some support from libertarians.

Cons

1.  Because the benefits are universal, not targeted, the program is extremely expensive, and would result in enormous tax increases.  Adoption of the UBI would, in fact, make the US look like Denmark in terms of the amount of public spending as a percentage of GDP.

2.  It discourages work.  Someone has to produce the goods and services on which we rely.  The robots haven’t taken over yet.

3.  It makes immigration an even more fraught issue.  The notion of paying the UBI to immigrants would be very troubling to most.

My reactions are as follows:

1.  This is the kind of debate about the future of the welfare system that we should be having.  I would have more interest in Bernie Sanders if he made the case for the UBI instead of, for example, his bogus proposal for free public college.

2.  The politics of this issue would be very painful.  Most of the right in this country believe the left just represents a moocher class.  This proposal would do nothing but reinforce that opinion.

3.  The relationship between the UBI and Social Security is uncertain.  Logically, the UBI could replace Social Security at some point, and thereby actually save some money, but there is no way that is going to happen for current beneficiaries, who largely believe that they are being repaid the money they put into the system.  Operating both Social Security and the UBI during a transition period would drive the costs up even more.

4.  We haven’t reached the point where technological and demographic change makes the moocher argument irrelevant.  Ten years from now, however, we might–we just don’t know right now.

5.  The UBI does nothing to address the problem of stagnant wages.  As I have indicated before, stagnant wages are a bigger political problem than increasing inequality or poverty.

6.  It would work best if it is adopted throughout the West.  Otherwise, capital will flee to countries with lower taxes.

On the whole, therefore, my attitude towards the UBI is that it is an idea whose time has not come yet, and may never come.  On the other hand, it has some real merits, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it on the table for real in 2024, or possibly even 2020.

 

There was never any doubt that Ryan would endorse Trump; he couldn’t very well run the convention as his declared opponent.  On the other hand, Ryan fancies himself a principled conservative, and he undoubtedly views Trump as an apostate, an obstacle to his agenda and future ambitions, and a likely electoral disaster.  The relationship between the two, therefore, was always going to be tricky.

I would describe Ryan’s approach to Trump as “love the sinner; hate the sin.” Ryan clearly believes he can square the circle in the eyes of the public by formally endorsing Trump, but making public his disagreements with him, and thereby keeping what he thinks is a safe distance.

I don’t know if it will work or not, but it might.  In any event, I think it would make a good template for our relations with friendly Third World dictators.

The GOP Speaker Paul Ryan.

His conservative heart must be cryin’.

His embrace of the Don

Seems a little bit wan.

If he tells you he’s happy, he’s lyin’.

1.  I need a job, and I might as well go to the very top.  Fortunately, I don’t know of any candidate meeting this description who ever made it anywhere close to the White House.  2016 example:  Carly Fiorina.

2.  I have a calling to be President.  Most people who feel this way do so practically from birth, and live their lives accordingly.  2016 example:  Ted Cruz.

3.  I don’t care about personal ambition; I’m just a vessel for an ideology that will help the country.  2016 example:  Bernie Sanders.

4.  It’s all about me and my ego.  I’ll be the most important person on the planet!  There’s just nothing like having the band play “Hail to the Chief” when you pop out of Air Force One.  2016 example:  Too obvious to mention.

Trump praised Ali on Twitter yesterday.  I guess that proves that even an African-American Muslim can be OK if he’s enough of a winner.

One thing is for certain:  when it comes to clever and imaginative trash talk, Trump is nowhere close to being in Ali’s league.

As Bernie continues with his quixotic campaign, the only important remaining questions revolve around his ultimate objectives.  Here is my best guess:

1.  Influence the platform.  In the final analysis, platforms don’t mean that much;  if you don’t believe me, watch and see how much deference Trump pays to the GOP platform this fall.  I think the Clinton and Sanders camps can probably agree on a formula that essentially says that the Clinton incremental approach is appropriate for the short term, but Bernie’s vision is the long term goal.

2.  Bernie for VP?  This makes more sense that you would think at first glance. Bernie has a large constituency and a vision that could help the Clinton campaign, and I don’t doubt that he would be a powerful voice against Trump. He is also qualified to be President, if necessary.  On the other hand, I think he has drawn too much blood during the campaign to merit serious consideration; everything he said about Clinton and Wall Street, for example, would be thrown back at both of them by Trump and his partisans.  His age would also be an issue, and Clinton doesn’t need his help to carry Vermont.  On balance, I don’t see it happening.

3.  Bernie Prime Time.  I suspect Clinton will agree to give him a prominent speaking role at the convention as long as he limits himself to providing his vision and attacking Trump.

4.  Where does he go after Philly?  It has to have occurred to him that the best chance for his “revolution” would be a Trump victory, followed by a failed presidency.  I don’t think he is cynical enough to give into that temptation.

Personally, I would like to see him try to mobilize his supporters into a force at the state and local levels, and I would also suggest that he take his message to red states and see if he can make any headway with Trump voters.  After all, the ultimate challenge he faces with his program is not with the rest of the Democratic party; it is with Republicans and Independents who despise the idea of “socialism.”

Another day, another icon dies.  That’s 2016 for you.

They called him “The Greatest,” and he actually was:  an amazing amalgam of speed, power, grace, and trash-talking.  Many have attempted to emulate him, particularly in the trash-talking department, but none has fully succeeded, and probably none ever will.

All three were geniuses who died prematurely, but I think their stories are fundamentally different.  Robin Williams strikes me as a man who fought bravely against his personal demons virtually all of his life until they finally overwhelmed him;  comedian or car salesman, his fate ultimately would have been the same.  Michael Jackson was doomed by issues in his upbringing and his inability to deal with the pressures of fame;  his life was in a downward spiral years before he died, and the outcome seemed inevitable even at the time. Prince, on the other hand, was living the way he wanted to, and there was nothing inevitable about his demise;  he just made a stupid, fatal mistake with his pain medication.  There is nothing more to it than that.

The Robin Williams suicide affected me the most, because it is so easy for me to see him as an essentially noble character in a tragedy.  The death of Prince is a loss to all of us, because there is no telling what music the world will never hear as a result. With Michael, the story of his life from roughly the middle of the 1980’s was just kind of sickening.

That’s my opinion.  I could be wrong.  If you disagree, don’t hesitate to say so.