Cromwell

Given his enthusiasm for Putin’s “strength,” his interest in visibly crushing Islamic terrorists, his desire to make deals, and his skeptical attitude towards Europe and the promotion of liberal democratic values, you have to believe that a President Trump would be looking to cut a quick deal with Putin in which we and the Russians would agree to collaborate militarily against ISIS in the Middle East in exchange for giving the Russians a free hand in Syria, Ukraine, and most of the rest of the former Soviet Union (the Baltic states possibly, but not certainly, excepted).

Let’s hope we never find out, but if Trump wins, you heard it here first.

As I’ve noted in the past, the PBPs used Reactionary votes to obtain large tax cuts and deregulation for themselves, while the Reactionaries got. . . well, lots of warm words about guns, empty promises to bring mining and manufacturing jobs back, a big recession, and a failed war in Iraq.  It wasn’t exactly an equal bargain, and it is hardly surprising that the Reactionaries are unhappy about it. Having failed to accomplish much in Congress with extremist tactics over the last several years, they are now expressing their anger by voting for Trump.

You would think the Trump phenomenon would result in some PBP soul searching, and a concerted effort to find a program that would appeal to disillusioned white working men without engaging in the worst excesses of Trumpism.  You would be wrong, however; the predominant PBP response has been to express contempt for the Trump voters, who clearly aren’t capable of appreciating the vast benefits created for them by tax cuts for the rich limited government.

Tribal loyalties are very strong, but the likelihood of the creation of a third party is growing by the day, particularly if Trump is denied the nomination in Cleveland.

The analogy between Trump and Berlusconi is obvious; both are boastful businessmen with colorful pasts and strong media connections who insisted that they could cut through the mediocre politics of the day to get their respective nations going again.  While Trump is, as far as I can tell, unlikely to engage in bunga bunga parties at the White House, the most significant differences between the two pertain more to the two political systems than to their personalities; as the directly elected President of the strongest nation in the world, Trump would have the ability to influence world events much more strongly than the Prime Minister of Italy ever could.

Berlusconi was, of course, a complete disaster as Prime Minister, so the next time someone tells you that Trump can turn America around with his vast business acumen, an appropriate response would be, “Just like Berlusconi?”

On most economic issues, Cruz is a Conservative Libertarian, which logically should make him a defender of free trade.  However, for reasons of pure electoral expediency, he has supported the Reactionary position over the CL position on two important issues:  immigration and protectionism.

This wouldn’t be a big deal if Cruz could pivot back to the center in a general election, but his entire campaign shtick revolves around his supposed ideological incorruptibility, so it is hard to see how he can walk it back.

There once was a Texan named Ted.

He’s closing, but Trump’s still ahead.

He once favored trade

But that stance he’s betrayed

And the TPP’s probably dead.

Mercantilism probably makes some sense if you are operating a state capitalistic system like the Chinese.  Every export business is, in a sense, an arm of the state, which seeks to accumulate and distribute assets in a way to maximize public gratitude and stability.

America is a different story.  Our country does not trade with China; our people and companies do business with their businesses.  Does it make sense to say that I am “losing at trade” if I buy a Chinese-made TV at a really good price? Similarly, are American construction and manufacturing companies “losing” if the Chinese are selling steel at remarkably low prices?  Clearly, no.

The bottom line with trade is that it is intended to benefit everyone; it is not a zero-sum game.  Focusing exclusively on the deficit in traded manufactured goods is, therefore, a warped way of looking at the situation, particularly since Americans frequently add much of the value to “Chinese”  products in the first place.

              We Didn’t Make That Here

iPhones made in China.

New cars from Japan.

Lots of clothes from Vietnam.

Some say it’s out of hand.

 

The flow of goods upon our shores

Can look like a tsunami.

It’s hollowed out the middle class

And damaged our economy.

 

We export jobs around the world

To lands with cheaper labor.

We get low prices in exchange

As they return the favor.

 

But we also have stuff for sale.

New works from Hollywood.

Drugs and beef and services.

Some manufactured goods.

 

We didn’t make that here, you say.

I cannot disagree.

But very few will benefit

When trade’s no longer free.

Sanders isn’t going to be the nominee, but you can’t say he hasn’t made a difference.  Here is his legacy, for good and for ill:

1. He has driven Clinton away from free trade agreements.  It is hard to see how the TPP can be approved at this point, given the success of the Trump and Sanders campaigns with protectionism.  The Chinese will be delighted.
2. He has put higher taxes and an expanded welfare state on the table.  Sanders is the most left-wing candidate I can remember seeing in my lifetime.  While some of his success simply derives from the fact that he is not a Clinton, one has to assume that part of it is a constituency to make America Danish.  That means we will see more proposals to expand the welfare state in the future.  One hopes that future candidates will have a more sophisticated idea of what is actually workable, but I give him credit for taking on a taboo and, to some extent, winning.
3. You can run a financially successful campaign with very little support from large donors.   Look for more of this in the future.

Here is the state of the Middle East and Africa when Trump’s successor took office in 2021:

1.  Trump almost immediately made a deal with Putin in which the latter was given a free hand in the former Soviet Union (minus the Baltic states, although there was some ambiguity there) in exchange for assistance with the war against IS.  Trump also agreed to support the Assad regime for the duration of the war.  Russia and the US then turned their guns collectively on IS.  The Caliphate was destroyed; however, elements of IS remain in other parts of the world.
2. Naturally, one of the outcomes of the American/Russian alliance on Syria was intense Turkish and Saudi anger.  Trump made it clear that his loyalty to them was purely transactional.  The Saudis responded by starting to work on a nuclear weapon.  As a result of all of this, Trump moved closer to Iran, notwithstanding his concerns about the nuclear agreement.
3. Trump attempted to midwife a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, but failed.  Thereafter, he lost interest in the subject, which he regarded as hopeless, and essentially told the Israelis to do as they pleased.
4. Trump eliminated all humanitarian and economic aid to African nations and stopped cooperating with international agencies doing humanitarian work, claiming that the US could no longer afford it.  He responded to pandemics, not by providing aid, but by prohibiting travel to and from the affected nations. American prestige in Africa collapsed, with the Chinese being the principal beneficiaries.

The corollary to President Trump’s willingness to accept Southeast Asia and the former Soviet Union as spheres of influence for China and Russia, respectively, was a more aggressive stance towards what he viewed as an American sphere of influence in Latin America.  Not surprisingly, this led to ongoing friction with Mexico and other South American countries.  Trump threatened military intervention on several occasions, and actually followed through with his threat on one or two.  As a result, American influence is at its lowest level in about a century.

So now to the State of New York.

Trump’s hoping to increase the torque.

A convention fight looms.

If it happens, he’s doomed.

Like a bottle of wine sold uncorked.

President Trump withdrew all of the American troops in South Korea and Japan, made it clear that our nuclear umbrella did not cover them, and repudiated longstanding security commitments to Taiwan.  The following events occurred after that:

1.  Lacking the ability to defend itself, Taiwan fell without a shot.
2.  The Japanese and South Koreans were essentially left with the choice of becoming Chinese vassal states or dramatically increasing expenditures on defense.  Even building a nuclear weapon would not address the fragility of their economic lifeline through the East and South China Seas.  The Chinese offered them easy terms, and they surrendered;  they are now part of a well-defined Chinese economic and political sphere of influence.
3.  China’s remaining potential opponents made the best deal they could.  The China Seas are now Chinese lakes.
4.  India held out.  Control of the Indian Ocean is necessary for the Chinese to maintain their own economic lifeline.  A potential conflict is brewing here.

He should replace the Rolling Stones with Beck on his playlist.  On second thought, he can keep “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”

Again, it is January 20, 2021.  President Trump, after unsuccessfully attempting to coerce our NATO allies to spend more on defense, has long since withdrawn all American troops from Europe.  He has also suggested that Europe will no longer be covered by our nuclear umbrella.  What has happened as a result?

1.  Beset by civil war and corruption, and no longer believing in Western support, Ukraine has thrown in the towel and agreed to become a Russian vassal state in exchange for economic aid and an end to the war.
2.  The Russians have invaded and now control Georgia.
3.  Germany is building a nuclear weapon.
4.  What is left of NATO now operates within the auspices of the EU.
5.  The security guarantee for the Baltic states has come into question.  Putin has considered invading, but, given the ongoing economic problems in Russia, he has decided against it, for the moment.  He continues to hope they will fall into his lap.

Apart from his family and his affection for “The Princess Bride,” there isn’t much to like about Cruz.  He oozes negative energy and ambition from every pore. Even people who should be his ideological allies view him as a user.  His extremism is a matter of record.

And yet, the left should be rooting for him, for the following reasons:

1.  He is the only plausible GOP alternative to Trump.
2.  A contested GOP convention can only help the Democrats.
3.  It is at least arguable that he would be an even weaker general election candidate than Trump if he gets the nomination.
4.  If, in spite of the odds, he won the general election, he would probably govern as a generic Republican;  his tax plan, which sets him apart from the GOP mainstream, would never pass even a GOP Congress, because it has too many losers.  He wouldn’t tear up all of our treaties or threaten the use of nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip.  In other words, he is a much less risky choice than Trump.