Cromwell

                    Super Bowl 50 (Not L)

I remember number one.

Back then it was kind of fun.

Now the thing’s so overblown.

Pregame antics make me groan.

Talking heads drone on and on.

Non-stop hype from dusk to dawn.

So much posing and b.s.

Nothing exceeds like excess.

 

The game itself should be OK.

Looking forward to Coldplay.

Marvel at the skills of Peyton.

Don’t see why some people hate him.

When it’s over, Cam should dance.

Broncos barely stand a chance.

Celebrate, and then it’s done.

Next year’s number fifty-one.

 

A few weeks ago, I posted a column in which I explained that Sanders and Cruz agree on one fundamental proposition:  the existence of a large group of disaffected voters (the poor and evangelicals, respectively) who would tip the scales in a general election.  Today, I pose the same question for Sanders and Trump:  where do they agree, and why are they wrong?

The answer is free trade agreements.  Both candidates agree that they have been a disaster for the American worker.  Sanders would attribute this failure to the pernicious influence of plutocrats on the political system, while Trump would say that it was the product of incompetent negotiators from both parties.

There is no doubt that globalization has had a huge impact on American workers. However, most of the job losses can be assigned to countries with whom we do not have free trade agreements.  Protectionism is an extremely inefficient way of saving jobs lost as a result of lower labor costs abroad; the better policy approach is to tax the beneficiaries of free trade agreements to strengthen the welfare state to help their victims.

As I noted in October, the worst case scenario for American policy in Syria would be to have the government and its allies crush the non-ISIS opposition forces, thereby forcing us to choose between ISIS and Assad.  Government successes on the ground over the last week or so suggest that this scenario is a very real possibility.  The only clear way to avoid it is to impose a no-fly zone over areas controlled by reasonably friendly non-ISIS forces.

              Granite State

The Granite State primary’s next.

Who will rise up to the test?

Will Trump’s campaign pull away?

Will Jeb survive another day?

 

Does Clinton have her race in hand?

Will this be Bernie’s final stand?

What about our friend Ted Cruz?

Everyone thinks he will lose.

 

I would bet on Bern and Trump.

Jeb and Christie’s chances slump.

Marco does well, so they’ll say.

Cruz will fight another day.

While all of the three principal GOP candidates believe in talking trash and increasing the defense budget, there are significant differences among them that can be plotted on a graph with one axis running from active to passive, and the other from interests to values.  How would that look?

Marco Rubio has shown himself to be a neoconservative sympathizer throughout the campaign.  If elected, he will use American power, or at least the threat of it, aggressively to promote American values throughout the world; there would be a renewed emphasis on human rights in places like China and Cuba.  He would be in the active/values quadrant of the graph, next to George W. Bush.

Donald Trump appears to believe that we have no permanent friends in the world, only permanent interests.  His idea of foreign policy is purely transactional, and is based solely on interests; he thinks even our so-called “allies” screw us over on a regular basis.  He would be placed in the active/interests quadrant.  The only analogy that I can think of is Richard Nixon.

Ted Cruz, for all of his bluster about destroying ISIS, is a small government conservative at heart.  He would increase the defense budget in order to protect the heartland and withdraw from the rest of the world to the maximum extent possible; there would be no nation-building under his administration.  He therefore belongs in the passive/interests quadrant, along with (he would hate this) Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

I’m hoping that, after the GOP field has been winnowed out, the three remaining candidates can have a genuine debate on the merits of their respective approaches.  It would be enlightening.

Reactions to tonight’s New Hampshire debate:

1. Listening to Bernie Sanders demonize Wall Street bankers is almost as tiresome as listening to Trump talk about illegal immigrants.
2. I wish someone would tell Bernie that:  (a) while money frequently makes a difference in our political system, campaign contributions are a small part of  a much larger issue, which mostly revolves around effective lobbying; (b) red states are not red because billionaires make huge campaign contributions to GOP candidates; and (c) even if you incorrectly assume that contributions are responsible for all of our political ills, it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United, and he can’t possibly get enough votes for that, even if the “revolution” is a success.
3. When Bernie described his “revolution” for the umpteenth time, he said that the inevitable surge in voter turnout would help Democrats hold the Senate and regain governorships; he did not, however, say that control of the House was attainable. If that is the case (and it is), then how will it be possible to pass his agenda?  His omission was effectively an admission that the revolution won’t happen.
4.  Clinton opposes the TPP for reasons smacking of political opportunism.  Sanders, on the other hand, rejects free trade out of principle, which is actually worse. Sanders and Trump are in fundamental agreement on this point.  Perhaps someone should remind him that the manufacturing jobs lost to China and Vietnam were not caused by a free trade agreement.
5. Fees paid to Clinton for speeches made when she was out of office did not, and could not, come with a quid pro quo other than the speech itself.  Sanders and his supporters have the burden of showing that some other consideration was anticipated and given.  I haven’t seen any evidence of it.
6. Pragmatism and inauthenticity are not the same thing.

So now we’re in the Granite State.

Trump isn’t feeling too great.

Christie and Bush

Need a really big push.

Without it, their hopes terminate.

Several weeks ago, I suggested that it would be a shrewd tactical move for Bush and Cruz to collaborate to take down Rubio and Trump, respectively.  I don’t think that happened; however, today’s NYT has an article in which it is made clear that the Christie and Bush campaigns are working together against Rubio. You could call it the Governors’ Alliance.

Bad feelings will abound when this is over.

Longtime viewers of this blog (to the extent there are any) will be aware that I posted a column entitled “On the Factions Within the Republican Party” back in July.  This column was the foundation of much of what has appeared here in the last six months.  To recapitulate briefly, I have identified four different ideological strains within the GOP, which are as follows:

1.  Christian Democrats (CDs), who are willing to support efforts to increase the size of the federal government in order to help the needy so long as the legislation in question maintains the existing hierarchy and moral standards and is as market-friendly as possible;
2.  Pro-Business Pragmatists (PBPs), who believe that taxes and regulations on business should be kept to an absolute minimum, but who will support increases in federal power that serve their interest (subsidies; tax preferences; bailouts; etc.)  PBPs typically take little interest in other issues involving the size of the federal government and are willing to make deals with the other factions on these matters, and even Democrats where necessary, to get what they really want.
3.  Reactionaries, who are not opposed to government programs which maintain and enhance traditional hierarchies and values and support “their kind of people” (i.e., hard working white Christians), but believe the thrust of government since the New Deal has been to undermine traditional values. Reactionaries consequently support Social Security, Medicare, farm supports, and protectionism, but oppose other forms of redistribution which are perceived to benefit people who are not “real Americans,” and loathe illegal immigration.
4. Conservative Libertarians (CLs) want to reduce the size of the federal government, period.  They decry federal efforts to support business as “crony capitalism.”

While the Reactionary faction is clearly the largest of the four, and has grown markedly in the last eight years, none commands a majority within the party, which means the nominee must represent a coalition of at least two of the factions.  In the recent past, the most popular coalitions have been the following:

1. The Romney Coalition, made up of CDs and PBPs.  Romney Coalition candidates typically are willing to take actions to grow the federal government to support the needy (think “compassionate conservatism”), but also support tax cuts and deregulation for business.
2. The Reagan Coalition, consisting of Reactionaries and PBPs.  Reagan Coalition candidates support tax cuts and deregulation, but also emphasize limiting immigration and spending on social programs and banning abortion.

There are two other potential coalitions that I will address below.

So how do the GOP candidates fit within this framework?  Consider the following:

1. Rubio, Christie, Kasich, and Bush are all Romney Coalition candidates.  All of them support big tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of business, and limits on entitlement programs (all PBP priorities), but all of them pay at least lip service to the needs of the poor.  They are viewed as “establishment” candidates because the last two GOP presidents (Bush 41 and 43) represented this coalition.
2. Trump is a Reagan Coalition candidate.  While his platform includes the usual PBP-friendly proposals for tax cuts and deregulation, he has placed more emphasis on limiting immigration and potential protectionist actions, both of which are concessions to the Reactionaries that do not serve the interest of the PBPs.  He also does not support entitlement cuts, another PBP priority.  It is for that reason that he is viewed with suspicion by the GOP intellectual leadership.
3. Cruz appeals to the Reactionaries and the CLs;  the logical name for this grouping is the Goldwater Coalition.  He takes the CL position on economic/fiscal issues and the Reactionary position on social issues.  The last time a Goldwater Coalition candidate was the nominee was, of course, 1964.

The final potential coalition could be called the Douthat Coalition, since he is the only person I know who advocates for it;  no actual candidates have embraced it. The Douthat Coalition would include CDs and Reactionaries; it would recommend limits on immigration (a Reactionary priority), anti-abortion legislation (a priority for both factions), and tax cuts and social programs targeted towards poor working people in an effort to appeal to the disaffected white working class.

Only one of the Romney Coalition candidates will survive the early primaries. The battle of the coalitions from that point forward should be fascinating.

One final note:  there has been a lot of discussion recently about a deconstruction of the GOP which divides the party into factions based on how “conservative” they are.  Personally, I find this useless, because it doesn’t identify what a “conservative” idea is, or why the factions are at war with each other over issues like bailouts and immigration.  The reality is that the factions actually have different ideologies; their disagreements are not limited to tactics.

The GOP stalwart named Rand.

Things didn’t quite go as he planned.

He thought he could win.

Terror plots did him in.

For his efforts, I’ll give him a hand.

I thought he would fight fruitlessly to the end, like his dad, but I guess he decided to save his Senate seat, which obviously makes sense.  He brought a libertarian perspective to the debates that will be missed (unlike, say, Christie’s action hero persona).  The logical beneficiary of his demise is Cruz.

Spoiler alert:  the title is a pun.

I, and others following me, have analogized the Trump campaign to a bubble. The point of my analogy was that relying on polling evidence of success to actually create victories was not likely to work in the long run.  However, the weakness of the analogy is that it suggests the Trump phenomenon is completely lacking in substance, and will suddenly and mysteriously disappear once the bubble has popped.  I don’t think that is the case.

The Trump campaign is not completely based on winning; it also taps into some real anger on the part of declining middle and working class whites about immigration and globalization, which really are two manifestations of the same issue.  In addition, Trump has damaged his business brand with his campaign, and has burned plenty of bridges, so he has every incentive to fight on, and he will.

In other words, I think a better analogy than the popping of a bubble for the eventual demise of his campaign is a deflated balloon.  It will continue to hang around, and will even capture some victories along the way (e.g., New Hampshire), but it will slowly become less relevant over time.

                  Trump Days Are Over

Iowa

Hit him like a train on a track.

Coming towards him; stuck still; no turning back.

He hid behind pollsters, and he hid on his plane.

He flew to New Hampshire, and there he remained.

In all his worst dreams, he never thought he could lose.

Now he’s behind, staring up at Ted Cruz.

 

The Trump days are over.

The Trump days are done.

The pundits are gloating

That his race is run. . .

 

Parody of “Dog Days Are Over” by Florence Welch/Isabella Summers (Forgive me, Flo)

Note:  This was written months ago in anticipation of a Cruz victory.  In reality, I don’t think Trump is finished yet, but this was too good to waste.  A discussion of the state of the Trump campaign will follow in a subsequent post.

I’m one for one.

Cruz desperately needed to win Iowa, given its favorable demographics and the intensity of his campaign there.  He succeeded.  Trump underperformed, but remains dangerous; the bubble won’t pop overnight.  Rubio put plenty of distance between himself and the other Romney Coalition candidates;  the story behind the story, however, is that the establishment candidates collectively only received about a third of the vote, which should be of great concern to his supporters.

Now, we move on to New Hampshire, where the demographics and the needs of the candidates are completely different.  Cruz just needs a respectable showing; a reasonably strong third would be fine.  Rubio needs to crush the candidates in his lane and finish no worse than second.  Trump needs a win–period.

My guess is that all three will get what they want.  A battle in South Carolina, which is fairly neutral turf, looms very large.

On the Democratic side, a virtual tie, while hardly glamorous, was adequate for Clinton’s purposes.  She will lose in New Hampshire, but her Southern/minority firewall will hold, and she will win the nomination easily.

 

So now for the Texan named Ted,

A Granite State test lies ahead.

His prospects are finer

In South Carolina

If not, then his chances are dead.

Two of the three principal GOP candidates are in desperate need of some mental health counseling.  Trump is a classic narcissist, although, to be fair, some of it may be an act;  Cruz, on the other hand, is filled with barely suppressed anger at a world that he thinks rarely gives him his due and never lives up to his lofty expectations. Rubio, by contrast, appears to be relatively sane, his performance at the last debate notwithstanding.  In that sense, you could call him a “moderate.”

But is he, when you look at his policy positions?  I decided to evaluate the three of them on issues on which they have some measure of disagreement by assigning points to them:  the most extreme gets three points, and the least, one. How do they stack up?

1. Aggressive foreign policy:  Rubio wins the prize here for his enthusiasm for neo-conservative doctrine.  Trump edges out Cruz, who just wants to engage in selective carpet bombing in Syria, due to his advocacy for a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods.  Scores:  Rubio 3; Trump 2, Cruz 1.

2. Tax cut plan:  Rubio’s plan has some small concessions to struggling workers; Trump’s is substantially larger, and is even more skewed to the wealthy; Cruz wants to completely overhaul the existing system and get rid of progressive taxation altogether.  Scores:  Cruz 3; Trump 2, Rubio 1.

3.  Entitlements:  Trump wants to maintain Social Security as it is; Rubio supports cuts for future beneficiaries; Cruz will consider a variety of kinds of cuts and supports partial privatization.  Scores:  Cruz 3; Rubio 2; Trump 1.

4.  Immigration:  Trump’s position speaks for itself.  Cruz basically agrees with him, but in less inflammatory language.  Rubio supported the Gang of Eight legislation, then walked away from it, but still sorta maybe thinks illegals should have some sort of status after he’s long dead.  Scores:  Trump 3; Cruz 2; Rubio 1.

5.  Abortion:  Trump was once pro-choice.  Rubio believes abortion should be outlawed, with no exceptions, but will support an more incremental approach, if tactically necessary.  Cruz, as you would expect, is completely inflexible.  Scores: Cruz 3; Rubio 2; Trump 1.

Final scores:  Cruz 12; Rubio 9; Trump 9.  Cruz is clearly the biggest extremist, but Marco is tied with Trump.  Does that make him a “moderate?”