Cromwell

The senator from my home state.

His Iowa chances aren’t great.

No one will be stirred

If he finishes third.

The voters will decide his fate.

Hawkeye State

Hawkeye state

Trump polling great

Not long to wait

It’s getting late.

 

Through the snow

The press in tow

At last we’ll know

Who’s good to go.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the election to date has been the propensity of some of the prominent candidates to attach faces to our problems and demonize them.  With Trump, it is the immigrants and the Muslims who have to be crushed; for Cruz, anyone with “New York values” does not belong in a decent society; for Sanders, the wealthy (particularly Wall Street bankers) are the axis of evil.

My suggestion is to vote for candidates who talk about issues and solutions, not internal enemies to be annihilated.

Sanders Revolution

You’re calling for a revolution

Yeah, we know

You want to break up the big banks.

You claim that it’s a real solution

Well, you know

I’m just telling you, no thanks.

‘Cause when you talk about Glass-Steagall

Don’t you know that you can count me out.

You know it’s gonna be all right.

 

You say I take their contributions

Well, you know

They don’t love me anymore.

You blame corrupt institutions

Well, you know

We’ve heard this all before.

Believe it or not, banks do some good.

They finance improvements in your neighborhood.

You know it’s gonna be all right. . .

 

Parody of “Revolution” by Lennon/McCartney.

Many mediations fail because the parties are unable to identify a reasonable compromise solution.  That is not the case with the Israeli/Palestinian dispute; everyone knows what the ultimate framework of the deal is.  This is a question of will, not of imagination;  the problem is that the risks associated with a deal, in the eyes of both parties (but particularly the Israeli side) exceed the benefits under current conditions.

Why is that?  Because both sides would probably be facing at least a low-level civil war if they actually come to an agreement.  In addition to that, the Israeli government would have to assume that armed resistance would continue from at least some Palestinians even if they have a binding deal with the PA.  The status quo may not offer any kind of ultimate peaceful solution, but it looks better than this alternative.

What could change that?  The bottom line is that the Palestinians currently have no leverage to force the Israelis to negotiate.  They can’t rely on the US to pressure the government, the Arab world is largely indifferent, and any effort at insurrection would turn the West Bank into Gaza.  All of their efforts to enlist the support of the UN have failed.  Their last card is to dissolve the PA, which would force the Israelis to bear the costs of renewed occupation and administration, but the Israelis are clearly willing to do that if push comes to shove.

I can only imagine two scenarios in which the Israeli government would conclude that the risks of reaching an agreement were lower than the risks of trying to maintain the status quo.  First, there could be some huge blow-up over the holy places that would cause intense outrage among all of the Arab nations and force Jordan and Egypt to provide military assistance to the Palestinians. Second, the potential exists for what amounts to a civil war within Israel’s borders with the Arab population; some of that is occurring today.  Barring one of those two events, there will be no meaningful negotiations for the foreseeable future.

Winners

1.  Donald Trump:  I guess he is a better judge of his opponents than I am.  Nobody made a concerted effort to attack him, and the debate was less interesting without him.

2.  Jeb Bush:  Is it a coincidence that he had his best performance in Trump’s absence?  Probably not.

3.  YouTube Questioners:  They asked very good questions that deserved a more comprehensive response.

Losers

1. Ted Cruz:  His only good moment was on the ethanol question.  He missed the chance of a lifetime to hand Trump’s head to him, looked bad on immigration, and whined about unfair treatment from the moderators (I didn’t think it was unfair).

2.  Marco Rubio:  He might as well have appeared wearing a Ted Cruz mask.  He looked and sounded angry and charmless.  Bush and the moderators got the better of him on immigration.  His repeated efforts to appeal to evangelicals sounded forced and wooden.

3.  Ben Carson:  Was he in a coma?  Why would anyone vote for this guy?

Also-rans

1. John Kasich:  He didn’t say anything memorable.

2. Chris Christie:  More of his interminable terrorist fighter shtick.

3. Rand Paul:  Managed to get in some good shots early, but gave an equivocal and basically dishonest answer to the question about the role of states in regulating abortion.

4.  The moderators:  The videos were a nice touch, but can we please cover some new ground with the questions?

 

It appears that he is going to follow through with his boycott threat.  How will that impact the debate?

There is a school of thought that the other candidates will focus their fire on Cruz.  With the exception of Rubio, I don’t think that is true;  there will be plenty of Trump bashing, and most of the rest of the disputes will be contained within the establishment lane (i.e., Christie v. Rubio and Bush v. Rubio).  The return of Rand Paul also means that there will be lively exchanges pitting him against most of the rest of the field on foreign policy.

I would like to see Cruz and Rubio discuss the merits of their very different tax plans.  We’ll see if the moderators oblige me.

On its face, you can see a rationale for it.  Personally, I would agree that Bloomberg would be a better President than Trump or Sanders.  He wouldn’t have to spend any time raising money, which eliminates a lot of organizational problems.  Finally, he undoubtedly thinks he can win 25 percent or so of both the Democratic and GOP votes–perhaps that would be enough to win.

Or not.  When you break it down on a state-by-state basis, it doesn’t work.  As an avatar of “New York values,” he would have absolutely no chance of beating Trump in any of the red states;  I doubt he would even bother to campaign in, say, Alabama or Mississippi.  He would split the Democratic vote in the blue states and potentially throw them to Trump, as well.

The bottom line is that his candidacy would result in an overwhelming victory for Trump.  Let’s hope we never find out.

I posted a column several weeks back in which I outlined the reasons that Rubio isn’t dominating his lane.  Ross discusses the same question in today’s NYT, and reaches the same conclusions, with the exception of the most important one: Rubio’s lack of swagger.

The GOP electorate wants someone who projects simple-minded strength.  They want a middle-aged or elderly man who will tell them in a convincing way that the world is a black-and-white place, and that he is the guy who will blow their enemies to smithereens.  In short, they want Ronald Reagan.  Trump and Cruz, in their separate ways, understand that, which is why they are leading in the polls.

Rubio, at least at this stage in his career, can’t pull that off.  He looks like a college professor, and he makes complicated issues sound complicated, not simple.  He can’t win the nomination unless he can somehow remake himself to look and sound more Reaganesque.

I know Douthat doesn’t want to hear that his party is pining for a strong man, but the results speak for themselves.

A whole lot of them value their anger more than their religion.  Maybe they can’t tell the difference.

All You Need Is Trump

There’s nothing he can do that isn’t dumb.

No state’s so blue it can’t be won.

Pander to our fears.

Threaten everything that’s dear.

It’s easy.

 

There’s no position too extreme.

Don’t be a sucker for a dream.

Put up a wall.

Make the neighbors pay for it all.

It’s easy.

 

All you need is Trump.

All you need is Trump.

All you need is Trump, Trump

Trump is all you need.

 

Parody of “All You Need Is Love” by Lennon/McCartney.

There once was a Donald named Trump.

Fox News made him look like a grump.

He’ll vote with his feet

‘Cause he can’t stand the heat.

If he does, his poll numbers will slump.

 

I can’t believe he is stupid enough to go through with his boycott, because if he does:  (a) he gives his opponents a free shot at him on national TV; (b) he looks like a wimp and a loser; and (c) he offends the viewers of Fox News.  It’s a lose-lose-lose proposition.

Bruce Rattner has a good column in today’s NYT about the impact of globalization on American workers.  I was planning to address that topic at a later date, but it is (or should be) the focal point of the election, so this is as good a time as any to share my opinions.

Anyone with eyes and a brain can see that globalization has been the primary driver of inequality in this country over the last 20 years.  The most obvious manifestation of that has been the loss of manufacturing jobs, but the fear of offshoring has also led to stagnating wages in both the manufacturing and the services sectors of the economy.  You now see companies making healthy profits demanding wage give-backs from their workers; the notion that a 5 percent US unemployment rate will substantially drive up wages is not necessarily correct, because it ignores the pool of cheap workers in Vietnam, China, and India.  The Fed would be wise to consider that when it makes future decisions about interest rate increases.

So what is the most appropriate public policy response?  There are three options:

1.  The Trump option:  protectionism.  As I have noted previously, the debate on protectionism has shifted from the Democratic to the Republican Party as disillusioned white male workers have joined the GOP.  Protectionism is an extremely inefficient way of dealing with the costs of globalization, and it should be rejected.

2.  The Democratic option:  strengthen the welfare state.  Sanders, Clinton, and Obama may disagree on the precise manner in which this should be done, but not on the concept.  In this scenario, acceptance of free trade is a moral and political bargain with the American worker; his job may be endangered, but he gets cheaper products from Walmart, and he can rely on a robust safety net to protect him from health and financial emergencies.  The funds for the expansion of the welfare state should come from the principal beneficiaries of globalization: capitalists.

3.  The mainstream GOP option:  deny there is a problem and dismantle the welfare state.  Most of the GOP candidates want to reduce the amount of “free stuff” available to the victims of globalization; in other words, they reject the idea of the bargain described in #2 above, and maintain that the unemployed and underemployed should solve their own problems through rugged individualism. The macroeconomic result of this approach, particularly when accompanied by tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, is that American companies pile up mountains of cash, but have nowhere to invest it due to inadequate demand from a weakened middle class.

No prizes for figuring out which of these options I support.

 

 

 

I have predicted that Cruz will win Iowa, based on his appeal to evangelicals and his ground game.  I’m sticking by my prediction; however, I have also provided a scenario in which Trump prevails, and the polls currently indicate that will happen.  If it does, what does that mean for the race as a whole, and for Cruz personally?

It is difficult to imagine a state in which the composition of the electorate is more favorable to Cruz than Iowa.  If Trump beats him there, and subsequently wins New Hampshire by a large margin (which is likely to happen regardless of the vote in Iowa), who is going to stop him, and where?

If you’re an optimist, you probably think that the establishment will agree on a single candidate immediately after New Hampshire.  I doubt it, for the following reasons:

1. It is unlikely that there will be a clear cut Romney Coalition frontrunner after New Hampshire, based on the latest polls;
2. At least three candidates have enough money to prolong the race indefinitely;
3. The chances that the Cruz and his counterestablishment will suddenly reach an agreement with the traditional establishment to support a single non-Trump candidate on short notice are very poor; and
4. Even if they did, there is no guarantee that the voters would follow them.  Do you think a disappointed Cruz voter would naturally gravitate to Rubio instead of Trump?  I don’t.

In short, I hate to be apocalyptic about it, but I think Trump sweeps to the nomination if he wins Iowa.

For Ted personally, if he loses, he’ll be so deep in the wilderness he’ll need a compass to get out.  He has staked his entire political future on becoming President.  He has alienated essentially everyone in Congress for the purpose of positioning himself in this election.  Look for him to serve out the remainder of his term and then look for a different job.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

To the leadership he cried “J’Accuse!”

He’s grim and ambitious

They find him pernicious

They’ll make sure that he pays his dues.