Cromwell

I’ll run the show in Cleveland town in late July.

The land where teams and dreams always come home to die.

We’ll go in with a roar, but leave there with a sigh.

I’m sitting here and wondering what went wrong and why.

 

My thing is making cuts to help the upper classes.

It doesn’t mean a thing they don’t help out the masses.

I don’t really believe Trump would work to pass it.

A divided GOP will make us look like asses.

 

I’ve got the blues.

The Presidential blues.

For all I hear and see

We’re really going to lose.

They asked me twice to run

But I always refused.

Now Trump will have control

And I’ll just be old news.

Reactions as follows:

1.  I have to assume that Cameron was consulted and either acquiesced or actively encouraged Obama to give the speech, which inevitably was viewed as a crude attempt by a foreigner to interfere in British affairs in some circles.  Since Obama is reasonably popular in the UK, it was probably a risk worth taking.
2. The referendum has powerful international implications, so it was not inherently wrong for an American to talk about it in public.
3. Putin and Marine Le Pen support Brexit, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about its merits.
4. I have written about the impact of Brexit on the UK in the past, so I will not repeat myself.  From the perspective of American foreign policy, any measure which leaves the EU weaker and more protectionist is a serious mistake.
5. The euro has been a disaster for the EU.  It was conceived less as an economic tool than as a symbol of increasing political unification, but saving it has become an end in itself and has thus (ironically) made nationalism the flavor of the month. That said, the EU remains, in the big picture, a success story, and the only beneficiaries of efforts to weaken it are noisome right-wing populists and the Russians.

Update:  Trump says he supports Brexit.  Need I say more?

                        The Trumpster Walks Alone

So now the Trumpster walks alone.

The race is finally over.

The PBPs just watch and groan.

Reaction is in clover.

 

He’ll tell us to prepare to win.

All deals are on the table.

But patience will be running thin.

His powers are just a fable.

 

So next time that he’s on TV

To sing his siren song

He doesn’t care for you and me

So please don’t sing along.

The Texan named Ted now is done.

I can’t say it’s been really fun.

I picked him to win.

While second’s no sin

I’d rather that he would have won.

It looks like President Trump would get rid of the FBI and the CIA and rely on the National Enquirer for his intelligence.

Trump is right about one thing; if Ted doesn’t somehow win Indiana, he’s done. Barring some sort of deus ex machina, the perception of inevitability will become even more powerful than it is today, and Trump will have his 1,237 delegates before he gets to Cleveland.

That would be good news for the city fathers of Cleveland, but not for the rest of us.

1.  It’s Obama’s fault.  Given our vast economic and military power, any competent leader would be able to force the Iraqis to work together.  Yeah, right. How successful was George W. Bush in dealing with the internal political problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?

2.  These people are hopeless.  Let’s get the hell out of here as fast as possible.  It probably wouldn’t take too long for a President Trump to reach that conclusion.  It would ultimately mean fighting terrorists at the water’s edge.

3.  Legitimate concerns about national security require us to be patient and do the best we can with imperfect actors over whom we have very limited control.   This is Obama’s position, and it would be Hillary’s, as well.  It would be nice if we could just drop a few bombs, make IS disappear, and withdraw from the Middle East, but the real world doesn’t work that way.

You’re not living in Germany in 1932.  The protests are tactically counterproductive, because they feed into Trump’s narrative, as well as being unnecessary.   Try assisting with voter registration drives or going door-to-door for Clinton if you really want to keep Trump out of the White House.

             Monochrome

When I think back on all the crap we took from Wall Street

It’s a wonder we survived at all.

And though our brand new regulations ain’t been tested yet

I can read the writing on the wall.

 

Monochrome

Give us your class war stump speech.

Tell us a win’s within reach.

Make us think J.P. Morgan lives again.

 

But the country is diverse.

Ignoring facts is perverse.

We’re lots of things, not one and all the same.

 

Parody of “Kodachrome” by Paul Simon.

Forget the Benghazi circus; the broader Libya question is the one that matters.  It reflects on Clinton’s ideology and judgment, and it has implications for future military interventions abroad–after all, there are plenty of people who think that Libya should be used as a template for Syria.

The issue needs to be broken down into a number of questions, posed chronologically:

1.  Was it a mistake to respond militarily to Qaddafi’s threat to massacre his opponents?  It is important to remember that the impetus for the intervention came from France and the UK, not from us.  Realistically, could we have refused assistance to our allies, and so facilitated the massacre of civilians by a man with so much blood on his hands, including ours?  In some ways, that would have been worse than Suez.  I don’t see it.

2.  Was it a mistake to change the nature of the mission to an effort to impose regime change?  Your first inclination is to say yes, but what was the alternative?  You can imagine trying to mediate an agreement with the government, but could you reasonably expect to make a lasting power sharing deal with a man like Qaddafi?  I don’t think so.  The lesson here is that purely humanitarian efforts inevitably become exercises in regime change when the existing regime is incapable of muting its behavior or sharing power.

3.  Could an acceptable political solution have been imposed on the parties immediately after the fall of the government?  It was tried.  The problem was that there were too many groups running around with too many guns to find a solution.  My best guess is that a quick political settlement was only possible with an occupation, and that was never in the cards.  Now, the process is going to be slow and painful.

There are lessons here even for purely humanitarian interventions.  As for the ultimate question, I would have to say that if history stopped today, both the Libyans and the West would have been better off leaving Qaddafi in power, but the entire story hasn’t been written yet, and the situation is more hopeful today than it was six months ago.  It is possible that when all is said and done, we will view the intervention as a success.  Or not.  We’ll see.

One of them is an ill-tempered old white guy who takes immense pride in being a winner; the other is running for President.  Can’t tell the difference?  You’re not the only one.

The real question is why is Trump more qualified to be President than Knight?  If being a winner is what it’s all about, wouldn’t you rather have the guy who won three NCAA titles than a guy who builds high rises and golf courses?

Douthat is a conservative Catholic, so it is no surprise that he has feet in two of the GOP camps:  the Christian Democrats and the Reactionaries.   He has been the most visible (and perhaps only) proponent of a CD/Reactionary coalition, whose policies would include the following:

1.  Strict limits on immigration, to increase wages for domestic workers.  This is a concession to the Reactionary position, as it is the antithesis of Christian charity; but then, he basically thinks Pope Francis is a heretic.
2.  Tax cuts and government programs tailored to the needs of working people, not the wealthy.
3.  Increased federal government activity on social issues, including, but not limited to, banning abortion.
4.  Skepticism about military interventions abroad (another departure from CD orthodoxy).

Douthat doesn’t have any use for Trump’s strong man act or for his apparent racism, but he was clearly hoping that the Trump candidacy would demolish the previous consensus in favor of supply side economics and military interventions and thus clear the way for the creation of his dream coalition.  All of those hopes are in ruins now, and Douthat has become a man without an ideological home; the WSJ has ripped him for questioning the standard PBP position on tax cuts for the rich, and the Trump and Cruz campaigns have no interest in his coalition.  To make things worse, the Reactionaries that he was relying on to regain control of the party from the PBPs have been exposed as self-interested proponents of racist, swaggering government.  Where does he go from here?

Here’s my suggestion:  England.  Move to the land of Evelyn Waugh and vote for Brexit.  It’s his spiritual home.

I predicted this in a post back in December.  It makes perfect sense.  The real question now is does it matter?  Probably not, but we’ll know more after Indiana.

All jocularity about Sarah Palin aside, Trump really needs to pick a running mate who:  (a) improves his relationship with the GOP establishment; (b) has executive experience on the state and federal levels, so he can actually run the government on a day-to-day basis while the Trumpster is off making his amazing deals; and (c) understands the workings of Congress.  In other words, he needs someone like Dick Cheney, although preferably without the evil, which he can provide himself.

Chris Christie’s name has been mentioned, but he doesn’t really meet all of these criteria.  In light of the upcoming showdown in Indiana, I would suggest Mike Pence as a plausible candidate.

Ted’s hopes rest in the Hoosier State.

He’s hoping Trump’s boasting will grate.

The ads won’t be fair.

Will Knight throw a chair?

Will StopTrump arrive way too late?