Cromwell

The senator from my home state.

His chances of winning aren’t great.

He hopes for a broker

To stop Don the joker

I’m guessing it’s far, far too late.

          The Liar and the Chokerman

(This should be the title of a Bob Dylan song)

The Liar and the Chokerman.

Both hold a Senate seat.

But neither is the favorite now

‘Cause Trump’s the man to beat.

 

The Liar and the Chokerman

Are not quite what they seem.

While both can boast a humble past

They’re both living our dream.

 

The Liar and the Chokerman

Are up upon the stage.

Though both have money in the bank

They’re both brimming with rage.

 

The Liar and the Chokerman.

You know which one is which.

To them we just don’t count at all.

They’ll only help the rich.

 

The Liar and the Chokerman.

Please say it isn’t true.

For neither one could give a damn

For folks like me and you.

 

The Liar and the Chokerman

Are heading for a fall.

But they still harbor heady dreams

That one will win it all.

 

The Liar and the Chokerman

Are getting near the end.

One thing’s for sure:  when they’re done

They won’t end up as friends.

 

The Liar and the Chokerman.

When’s it’s said and done.

When all the lights have been turned off

Trump will be the one.

The best estimates I have seen indicate that Sanders is advocating for a maximum effective marginal tax rate of about 70 percent, which gives rise to two questions:

1.  Is this rate historically large?  Compared to rates in the during the Eisenhower Administration, not at all.  However, we haven’t seen rates like this since the 1980’s, and capital is a lot more mobile now than it was then.

2.  How does this rate compare to those of other countries with reasonably similar economies?  It would be very high.  Recent experiments with “supertaxes” have been failures.  Realistically speaking, you could expect a large increase in tax exiles, with a corresponding reduction in the dynamism of the American economy.

In short, I have no problem advocating for a country that looks a bit more like Denmark, but this is a bridge too far.

The prevailing orthodox position on foreign policy within the GOP is neoconservatism, which could be defined as the belief that America must forcefully and visibly assert its belief in liberal democratic values, and that those values can and should be imposed by military force throughout the world, where necessary.  This position is completely consistent with the GOP’s view of itself as the butt-kicking Daddy Party, but is difficult to reconcile with its support of severe limits on federal power at home.

Trump doesn’t subscribe to any of this.  He doesn’t believe that American values can be applied universally, so, to him, there are no foreign policy conflicts between interests and values–interests prevail, period.  Furthermore, he doesn’t believe that America has any friends abroad; in his eyes, even our so-called “allies” exploit us on a regular basis.  He basically wants to renegotiate all of our relationships with everyone, using our superior military and economic strength as leverage, and then disengage with the world to the maximum extent possible.

Some of his specific ideas, such as “taking the oil” in Iraq and Syria, are too stupid to be worthy of serious analysis.  I don’t agree that it is practically possible for our foreign policy to be completely separated from our values, and I don’t think we can disregard the relationships (both positive and negative) that we have created with other countries over time.  However, I have to admit that I find his approach to be a bit of a refreshing change from what we have heard from Bush, Cheney, et. al. for the last 16 years; more focus on our interests would, in fact, be appreciated.

 

1. The Romney speech was vivid, accurate, and tactically obtuse, unless you assume that he is offering himself as an option for a brokered convention.  Trump voters view him as a loser and the very embodiment of the establishment.  If anything, the vehemence of his language will cause them to dig in even deeper.
2. Hillary, on the other hand, has to be delighted.  She won’t even need to hire a PR firm to do her commercials; she can just use edited versions of this speech, and the debates.
3. I agree that the moderators need to fact check answers that are given during the debate, but I don’t think it was even remotely evenhanded of them to run film of just one candidate’s flip-flops.  The role of the moderators should be to ask policy questions that cause the candidates to distinguish their positions, and to get out of the way.  All that notwithstanding, the Fox News panel makes for great TV.
4. If this had occurred six months ago, it probably would have been the end of the Trump campaign; he was on the defensive all night, and his weaknesses as a candidate were laid bare for all to see.  As it stands today, I don’t think it matters; the voters have already seen enough to make up their minds.  The only remaining question is whether we will have a decisive Trump victory and a walk-out by part of the GOP establishment, or a brokered convention and a walk-out by Trump.  We will probably know the answer to that in two weeks.

            Motor City Madness

Madness hits the Motor City.

Megyn shows Trump little pity.

Kasich bemused by the show

As Trump trades shots with Rubio.

 

Cruz is cold and patronizing.

None of this should be surprising.

When it’s over, you will say

It didn’t matter, anyway.

And so the primaries wind down.

The GOP leaders are clowns.

The tone of the race

Is a crying disgrace.

You could say it’s all fury, no sound.

In 2012, the GOP nominated Mitt Romney, a wealthy businessman with an extreme position on illegal immigration.  He lost, and the Republican establishment vowed to make changes so it would never happen again.

The party is now on the verge of nominating an even wealthier businessman with an even more extreme position on illegal immigration.  Way to go, GOP. You da man.

Trump essentially makes four arguments to support his candidacy.  Here they are, with my responses:

1.  As an outsider, and a businessman, I bear no responsibility for the failures of either the GOP or the Democratic establishment over the last 20 years.   I can’t disagree with that, but if that is the only criterion, I am equally qualified to be President.

2.  As a successful businessman, I know how to make the economy run better than any politician does.   Trump’s record is actually a mixture of successes and failures;  the logic of this argument would lead you to support Michael Bloomberg, or Warren Buffett, not him.  In addition, as I have explained at some length on previous occasions, running the government is fundamentally different than running a business, and there is no reason to believe that businessmen have any special insight into how to grow the economy as a whole.

3.  I am a great negotiator.  I can get parties together and produce deals.  By all accounts, Trump is, in fact, an effective, if volatile, negotiator.  Making deals with local governments and other businessmen, however, is not the same thing as negotiating with parties who have armies of constituents, or even nuclear weapons, behind them.  It should also be noted that there is a lot more to running a government than making deals.

4.  I am a strong man.  I kick butt.  To be a man on horseback, you have to be able to ride a horse.  Trump is a businessman, not a military man; there is absolutely nothing in his record that suggests that there is any validity to this argument.  Furthermore, it is logically inconsistent with #3, which presupposes that he is capable of engaging in give and take with adversaries.  If you’re really a strong man, you don’t have to negotiate with your opponents;  you just impose your will on them.

If you’ve ever seen the musical “1776,” you know that one of its running gags is that John Adams is so obnoxious, he can’t be given the primary responsibility for doing anything important in Congress, because his involvement alone will create opposition among the many people who dislike him.  Even Adams grudgingly admits that is the case.

In other words, he’s a role model for Ted Cruz.

 

 

Onward, Christian soldiers.

Marching to the polls.

Take on Trump and Marco.

Put them on the dole.

 

Onward, Christian soldiers.

Rise and heed Ted’s call.

Without you, he’s nothing.

With, he wins it all.

 

Onward, Christian soldiers.

Stuff the ballot box.

Don’t let Trump deceive you.

He’s crazy like a fox.

 

Onward, Christian soldiers

Press on, if you dare.

Without your support, Ted

Hasn’t got a prayer.

A few months ago, I posted a column entitled “Marco and the Two Friedmans” which addressed an argument implicitly made by Rubio during one of the debates.  The gist of the argument was that big government inevitably takes sides with big business over small business, and thus is a driver of inequality.  My conclusion was that this ignored the conflict between capital and labor that is the real source of inequality, but that Marco was at least entitled to some points for creativity.

About two weeks ago, there was an op-ed from Charles Koch in the WaPo  about Bernie Sanders and inequality which said almost exactly the same thing.  It’s reasonable to guess that Marco didn’t come up with this idea first.

In addition, it turns out that the line about Obama that Rubio repeated robotically during the New Hampshire debate comes more or less straight from Rush Limbaugh.

At least we know who his intellectual influences are.  What, you were expecting Burke and Mill?

The senator from my home state.

His Reaganesque shtick’s out of date.

He’s a likable bloke

But his views come from Koch.

Stop him before it’s too late.

We have a running gag in our household in which I attribute events that are clearly out of the control of anyone in this country (e.g., natural disasters, market corrections in China) to a lack of leadership from President Obama.  The point, of course, is that the GOP and the MSM blame him for all sorts of things over which he has little or no influence;  the difference is just a matter of degree.

In light of that, it is only fitting that Ross Douthat puts a portion of the blame for Donald Trump on–you guessed it–President Obama.

Here is his deconstructed argument, and my response:

1. The messianic elements of Obama’s 2008 campaign were a foretaste of Trump’s tactics.  Yes, some of the 2008 campaign imagery was overblown, but Obama ran a conventional race, well within the Democratic mainstream, as an experienced politician offering specific solutions to policy problems.  The overriding theme of the campaign was to bring the country together.  Trump is running as a celebrity with no answers to problems (some of which, such as immigration, are imaginary) other than faith in the vastness of his will and dealmaking talents; in addition, he is deliberately dividing his own party, to say nothing of the country as a whole.  I don’t see much convergence here.

2.  Obama has driven the Democratic Party to the left, particularly on cultural and social issues.  That simply isn’t true.  Obama was a passenger on the gay rights train, not its conductor.  As to his positions on crime, race relations, energy, health care, guns, and so on, they are squarely in the middle of the Democratic Party.  No Democratic Party candidate for President in either the 2008 or the 2016 election could have deviated from them and prevailed.  Please also note that in places like Kentucky and West Virginia, McCain outpolled Bush; that was before Obama did anything in office.

3.   Take our reactionary crazies–please!  Ross appears to believe that the interests of the country were better served when the Democrats were more of a class-based party than a coalition of victims.  As it turns out, there is a candidate who agrees with him, and thinks issues like guns and race are just symptoms of the real problems in this country.  He just lost South Carolina by 50 points.

Is Ross really feeling the Bern?

 

 

You Rush Limbaugh fans should appreciate the irony of this one.

                My Party Was Gone

I went to the debate

But my party was gone.

I could only stand to watch it

With headphones on.

 

We tried to be civil

When we argued in the past.

Now it’s all angry drivel.

The good times never last.

 

I said hey, hee, way to go, GOP!

 

Parody of “My City Was Gone” by The Pretenders.

Final note:  Bush 41 looks more like an island of sanity and competence in a sea of GOP lunacy every day.