Cromwell

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

His monetary views are obtuse.

He wants to use gold

I’m reliably told.

I guess he thinks old news is good news.

Our local newspaper ran an article yesterday about the results of the Florida primary  that focused on the residents of a mobile home park.  According to the article, the residents were angry that the out-of-state owner had let the park run down, so they voted in large numbers for Trump, who presumably promised to make their park great again.

You can snicker at this if you want to (I certainly did), but I think there is a larger truth in this fairly ridiculous story that needs to be recognized.

In all likelihood, the park residents were Democrats until the 1960’s and 1970’s, at which time the party started to evolve from a more class-based organization into a coalition of victims.  They loved Reagan, who exuded strength, talked trash to the rest of the world, and identified with their values.  They ultimately became Republicans, but despised George W. Bush for his recession and his unsuccessful and unnecessary war.  They hate Obama for being too “urban” and for, in their eyes, showing contempt for them and their values.  In short, they are just generally angry about the state of the country (including their park), and they don’t really identify with either party, because they don’t want either big government that sides with people they perceive to be their enemies, or limited government that works primarily for rich people;  they want swaggering government that understands their frustrations, protects their interests, and kicks butt abroad.

Hence the popularity of Trump.  I mention Le Pen in the title of this post because you are going to see the same phenomenon in France in 2017.  Le Pen is going to tell the electorate that Sarkozy led them into a recession, and is a tool of the Germans, while Hollande has done nothing to improve the situation, and so the only way out is to vote against the two failed establishment parties and for her.  I will be very surprised if she doesn’t win the most votes in the first round, and her chances of winning will be similar to Trump’s.

So, the GOP’s options are now effectively limited to a dangerous small government ideologue and an unprincipled adventurer with no obvious core beliefs except in his own right to rule.  Now you know how the Federalists felt when they had to choose between Jefferson and Burr in 1800.

You can’t make a plausible argument that Sanders is more qualified to be President than Clinton, so the only reason to vote for him is his agenda.  The agenda, in turn, has no future unless millions of disaffected voters can be persuaded to vote, not just for Sanders himself, but for left-wing Democrats at all levels of government.  Hence, the need for the “revolution.”

The Sanders campaign scrupulously adhered to this approach in its early days; most notably, he declined to comment on the Clinton e-mail issue, because he knew it wouldn’t advance the “revolution” in any way.  Now, however, in the face of levels of turnout that prove that the “revolution” simply isn’t happening, Sanders is starting to become less of a “revolutionary” and more of a conventional left-wing Democratic candidate.  He still isn’t saying much about the e-mails, but he is taking shots at Clinton for actions taken by her husband in the 1990’s, among other things.

None of the new attacks on Clinton are personal or gratuitous, but they don’t advance the “revolution;” they are only designed to get Bernie elected President, which isn’t going to happen.  If Bernie is really serious about the “revolution,” he needs to change the focus of his campaign to encourage votes for Democrats who share his agenda at the congressional and state levels.

 

The Democrat candidate Sanders.

To white working men he panders.

He lacks ammunition

For a war of attrition

Like trench warfare battles in Flanders.

There is plenty of skepticism about the partial Russian withdrawal from Syria. Given Putin’s history, the skepticism is obviously justified, but the Russian intervention was not a secret and appeared to be successful, so it is likely that he is telling the truth.

So, why withdraw now?  Or, to restate the question, what exactly are Putin’s objectives in Syria, other than his obvious interest in maintaining his military and diplomatic asset there?

I can see four possible reasons for the withdrawal, which are not mutually exclusive:

1. He is paying an unacceptable price for the intervention at home.  I would like to think that was true, but I don’t see any evidence to support it.

2. He is sending a message to Assad that he only maintains his position at the sufferance of Russia.  There is every reason to believe that Putin doesn’t trust Assad, and in any event, the Russians are in a struggle for influence with his Iranian backers.  There is at least an element of truth to this one.

3. Putin really wants a diplomatic solution to Syria, albeit one that protects his interests and maintains at least some semblance of the regime in power.  If so, that would be very encouraging, as we have no compelling interest in reducing Russian influence in Syria.  The ideal solution to Syria was always a compromise in which Assad left power in favor of a more acceptable member of the regime who could do business with both the moderate rebels and the Russians.

4. Putin is concerned that if he goes too far, the Turks will send ground forces into Syria.  At some point, that is likely to happen, particularly if the Russians start getting too close to the Kurds.  Stopping now eliminates the potential for a confrontation with the Turks, and possibly all of NATO, that would be extremely dangerous for all sides, but particularly for the Russians.

 

Observations on the race after Super Tuesday II:

1.  As I stated on several occasions, most notably in a poem called “Old Wine in New Bottles,” there was nothing “moderate” about Rubio; he was running as Bush 43 on steroids.  The hope obviously was that a fresh face could make tired and dangerous ideas palatable to the general public.  It was plausible, but it failed, and we can be grateful for that.
2.  Rubio’s departure doesn’t really change the dynamics of the race; now there are two anti-Trumps instead of three.  Unless Cruz and Kasich are willing to work together to bring us the brokered convention, they will continue to split the anti-Trump vote, and Trump will continue to win delegates with pluralities.
3.  My Marco Monday feature is retired as of this week.

The senator from my home state.

His bubble was bound to deflate.

He’s hanging his head

‘Cause his campaign is dead.

The White House just wasn’t his fate.

The Friedman column on the TPP in today’s NYT should be required reading for all of the candidates.  The voters, too.

Please vote for me, red America.

We’ll build a wall together.

And tariffs, too.

It’s all for you.

We’ll keep the world out.

That’s what I’m about.

 

Parody of “Don’t Cry For Me, Argentina” by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice.

There is nothing in Donald Trump’s background as a semi-successful developer, reality show star, and product pitchman that qualifies him to be a man on horseback, or suggests that he is a passionate bigot (misogynist, I will grant you). He has said nothing during the campaign which suggests that he rejects the democratic process.  And yet, the outbreaks of violence at his rallies over the last week or so could be the beginning of a dangerous new phase in his candidacy. Why has this happened, and where is it going?

In my opinion, it is the logical result of his decision to run for President.  He can’t run on his qualifications, because he doesn’t have any.  He can’t run on his mastery of policy, or his ideology, because he doesn’t know anything about policy, and he makes up his positions as he goes along.  His success is based on two things: he learned from the 2012 Romney campaign that you can’t be too far to the right on illegal immigration; and you have to project swagger to the nth degree. Everything else is a detail.

Once you have decided that your only chance to win is as a bigot and a strong man, where do you stop?  How can you deal with the inevitable protesters, except to beat them up?

In the likely event that he gets the nomination, the next question, of course, is whether he will surround himself with party regulars and default to the GOP norm during the general election, or double down on his Captain Outrageous routine.  I addressed this in a previous post.  If it is the latter, and I think it will be, the violence is only going to get worse with time.  Whether that would work to his benefit or detriment is an open question.

No, this isn’t a post about his ridiculous ideas on monetary policy, although I plan to address that at a later date.

Cruz is running as an unusual sort of combination of insider and outsider candidate:  insider enough to prove his competence, but outsider enough to attract voters who are completely repelled by the status quo.  As I’ve noted before, he shares this concept of his candidacy with Bernie Sanders, but at the other end of the ideological spectrum.

So far, you wouldn’t say this approach has worked, because Trump has dominated the outsider lane.  If Rubio and Kasich are driven out of the race tonight, however, it is conceivable (maybe even likely) that the establishment will be forced to embrace him, and he will have the best of both worlds going into the remainder of the campaign.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

The voters in NC he woos.

He hopes that Missouri

Will withstand Trump’s fury

And Marco and Kasich both lose.

The Democrat maverick named Bern.

To the Midwestern states he now turns.

He hasn’t a path

If you check out the math

And no hope that I can discern.

Rubio dismissed the notion that he would quit the race and join Cruz as the junior partner on a unified anti-Trump ticket last week, saying that it sounded like something out of “House of Cards.”  He was right;  it isn’t a decision he can make without considering the interests of his supporters.  That aside, however, the question for the day is whether the unified ticket makes sense for either Cruz or Rubio.

The advantage of the ticket for Cruz is that it would essentially guarantee him the nomination if the convention is brokered and Trump loses even though he knows he is unpopular with the party leadership.  The disadvantages are that it would saddle him with someone he doesn’t like as a running mate, and he is likely to be the choice of a contested convention in any event.  On balance, if I were Cruz, I would probably take that deal.

For Rubio, the deal means that he trades whatever slight chance he has of being chosen as the nominee at a brokered convention for the virtual certainty that he would be the junior member on the ticket under those conditions.   Given that his relationship with Cruz is not exactly warm, the best case scenario would be that he would be attending lots of funerals for the next eight years, and would be the heir to the (probably unpopular) Cruz legacy in 2024, while the worst (and most likely) case would be another defeat and more damage to his brand.  To me, that is an offer I could refuse.