Cromwell

It depends on the issue.  Here is my analysis:

1. Social issues:  Anti-Trump, without a doubt.

2.  Immigration:  He sold out his Conservative Libertarian allies for votes on this issue.  Trump Lite.

3.  Free Trade:  See #2 above.  Trump Lite.

4.  Economic Policy:  While both Cruz and Trump support huge tax cuts for the wealthy, they do so from a different philosophical perspective.  Ted also wants to bring back the gold standard.  He’s clearly the more extreme candidate on these issues, so call him the Anti-Trump.

5.  Entitlements:  Ted hasn’t seen an entitlement cut he didn’t support.  Anti-Trump.

6.  Foreign Policy:  Both candidates have strong isolationist streaks, but Ted hasn’t questioned the value of NATO, threatened to bring troops back from South Korea and Japan, or suggested imposing a huge tariff on Chinese goods.  Anti-Trump.

On balance, I would say he’s more Anti-Trump than Trump Lite, but it’s fairly close.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

He and John Kasich did choose

To pull off a deal.

The brass ring one would steal.

The other, alas, will still lose.

This should have happened about two months ago.  The questions now are, is it too late, and will their respective voters respect the deal?

It should help Cruz quite a lot in Indiana, particularly if Kasich makes a serious attempt to sell it to his supporters.  I think it is too late to make a difference in tomorrow’s primaries.  On the whole, it is going to come down to California, and what happens with the unbound delegates.

To the extent that Trump resembles any of our past Presidents, it would be Jackson:  an angry, racist, economically illiterate populist.  It is only fitting, then, that Trump reacted to the change to the $20 bill by calling it the product of political correctness.

Of course, the big difference between the two is that Jackson actually was a certified kicker of British and Native American butt, whereas Trump builds high rises and golf courses and sells wine and steaks.  In other words, Jackson rode a horse, not a golf cart.

Sanders and Corbyn obviously have a lot in common;  both are unreconstructed lefties from the 70’s who have succeeded in persuading at least some of the public that their very old fundamentalist ideas are new and fresh.  Corbyn won, however, and Sanders won’t.  Why the difference?

In a nutshell, Labour voters view Blair and Brown as being sellouts, American puppets, and failures, whereas a large majority of Democrats think the Clinton and Obama presidencies were successes.  Anti-establishment politics consequently have a greater cachet in the UK than they do among American social democrats. That is, until Corbyn is viewed as part of the establishment himself, but that will take time.

The Democrat maverick named Bern.

To the left his whole party he’d turn.

Inspired by Labour

He’d return the favor.

Old lefties, they never will learn.

 

More on Bernie and Jeremy tomorrow.

Let’s face it:  the difference between Assad and Sisi is one of degree, not type.  And yet, we kind of support the one, and insist on the removal of the other.  Why?

Largely because degrees matter, and Egypt, as the larger country, is a more important ally in the struggle for stability in the Middle East.  That said, we can’t possibly give the regime a complete embrace without either looking delusional, compromising our values, or both, so we need to make it clear to the world that any assistance we give the government is based on our self-interest, and not on any judgment about the quality of the regime.

The great would-be pharaoh named Sisi.

Obama, he thought, was too prissy.

He’s no democrat

Rule of law’s falling flat

He makes Assad look like a sissy.

2016:  Trump thrives, and Prince and Bowie die.  How low can it go?

Our country being what it is, we have always pretended that we share values with the Saudi regime, but we don’t.  The fact is that our relationship has been based on two tangible things:  our mutual interest in keeping the oil flowing; and our desire for political stability in the area.

Both of these are under threat.  The Saudis no longer have the kind of market power that they did, say, ten years ago.  And, to make matters worse, the Saudis are no longer a force for stability; their foreign policy has become much more aggressive without the means to implement it, unless the US is willing to serve as the tip of the Sunni spear.

It is clear that President Obama wants to free us of our dependence on this relationship, and to put us in a position where we have the ability to cooperate with both the Saudis and the Iranians to maintain regional stability on a case-by-case basis.  Iraq alone makes this necessary, and Syria may ultimately follow.

Where is this going in the long run?  If Clinton wins in November, it is likely that we will go back to being a gendarme for the de facto Israeli/Saudi alliance.  If Trump wins, Obama’s skepticism about these relationships will look mild compared to the changes that are coming.

 

My mother was fond of questioning why the Germans embraced Hitler, given that he looked nothing like the Aryan ideal he espoused.  I never had a good response to her query, other than to say that people will listen with their hearts and not their ears when they’re under enough stress.

A similar question can be asked about Donald Trump.  How can a semi-successful developer and product pitchman with no political or military experience pass himself off as a strong man with all of the answers, even if, for the most part, he can’t actually tell you what they are today? Why are the GOP voters buying into this nightmare?  I think the answer can be found in the success of “The Music Man.”

As you know, the gist of “The Music Man” is that the protagonist, Harold Hill, is a con man who purports to be able to teach students how to play musical instruments through a magical method that requires no actual formal training. When he is ultimately cornered, and the system is put to the test, the musical would have you believe that it actually sort of works.  The show is, and for a long time has been, an American standard, which means that we as a nation love the idea that a huckster with a few redeeming qualities can prevail over reason and conventional morality.  Sound familiar?

Would a real strong man run around the country complaining about the rules? Of course not:  a real strong man doesn’t whine–he kicks butt.

Trump purports to believe that an enormous tariff on Chinese goods will result in the return of manufacturing goods to the US.  This is a classic import substitution program; it resembles the one being employed in Russia, partly by choice and party due to sanctions imposed by the EU.

As in Russia, it wouldn’t work, for the following reasons:

1.  The Chinese economy has evolved to the point where, for a substantial number of essential manufactured goods, there is no alternative supplier.
2.  It would take years before the market actually believed the tariffs would stay in place and the requisite investment in new plant and equipment could be made. Prices would skyrocket in the interim, leading to very high wage demands and a likely increase in interest rates.
3.  For goods that are highly dependent on labor costs, the most plausible alternative to China is not the US, but Vietnam or India.  The tariffs would have to be applied all over the world in order to result in import substitution.
4.  Even if, somehow, the tariffs “worked,” and the substitute goods were ultimately made in the US, the cost of each “saved” job would be prohibitive, based on a multitude of studies, and quality would suffer accordingly.

Does this sound like a good way to “Make America Great Again?”

You’re winners!

Or, at least, you used to be.  You built the arsenal of democracy.  You kicked the Nazis and won the Cold War.  The problem is that, at some point, you started feeling guilty about being the richest and most powerful nation on Earth.  You felt obligated to spend trillions to bring democracy to countries where they can’t even spell the word.  At home, you let everyone in, whether it was lawful or not, and you conceded power to people who hadn’t had it before and who had done nothing to deserve it.  As a result, the country has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Enough of this political correctness crap.  I know who made this country great, and you do, too; you just haven’t had the nerve to say it out loud.  That’s OK;  I’ll do it for you.

There are two ways of dealing with Netanyahu.  The first way, championed by the Clintons, requires us to repeatedly embrace and reassure him in the hopes that it will give him the confidence to make difficult concessions.  The second way, espoused by Obama and Sanders, involves calling him out whenever he acts in a way that is contrary to the interests of peace.

The Clinton method makes for better domestic politics, while the Sanders/Obama technique is more emotionally satisfying.  The bottom line, however, is that neither approach actually works; in the final analysis, we have about as much clout with the Israeli government as the Chinese do with the North Koreans.  The Palestinians have undoubtedly taken note.