Cromwell

David Brooks has a column in today’s NYT in which he calls for a “Republican Conspiracy,” which is actually the Christian Democrat agenda.  If that ever happened, I would start taking the GOP seriously again, but it won’t, for the following reasons:

1. The PBP enforcers won’t permit it to happen.  Does anyone believe the WSJ will ever support a tax cut plan that doesn’t give most of its benefits to the wealthy?

2.  It sounds too much like Bush 43’s “Compassionate Conservatism.” “Compassionate Conservatism” was discredited by the failures of the Bush Adminstration.  Compassion is out;  anger is in.

3.  The GOP would have to admit that its worship of the fictional “Ronald Reagan,” who saved the country with his across-the-board tax cuts, isn’t a viable basis for governing in the 21st Century.  Old habits die very hard.

Incidentally, it is becoming clear that, among the CD columnists, Brooks and Gerson are burning their bridges to the Trump and Cruz campaigns, while Ross Douthat is keeping his options open.  My guess is that Douthat will support either one as the nominee if and when push comes to shove, because abortion, in the final analysis, is the only issue that matters to him.  I think he would support Saddam Hussein if he promised to end abortion.

His music lives on, which gives a different meaning to the famous line:  “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

Cruz famously read from “Green Eggs and Ham” during one of his filibusters, so he should appreciate this:

You’re a mean one, Mr. Cruz.

Little children fear your name.

There’s an icebox where your heart was.

You’ve got cobras in your brain.

Mr. Cruz

The only question is, which of your parents is to blame?

 

You’re a foul one, Mr. Cruz.

Your list of friends is blank.

You’re as cuddly as a rhino.

You stink like a septic tank.

Mr. Cruz

The three words I hope describe your poll numbers are as follows:  sink; sunk; sank!

 

You’re a monster, Mr. Cruz.

You’ve a bank vault for a soul.

You’re as warm as the Antarctic.

You’re as bright as a black hole.

Mr. Cruz

Come on people:  let’s put him on the dole!

 

Parody of a song performed on “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” by Dr. Seuss.

P.S.  To be fair to the guy, at least he is starting to make the arguments against Trump that the establishment should have raised months ago.

Start spreading the news.

Ted’s leaving today.

He just can’t stand our values here.

New York, New York.

 

Conservatives few.

The culture is gay.

He hates the very sight of it.

New York, New York.

 

He wants to wake up far away

From Times Square.

He’ll be the king of the hill

Just not there.

 

The city’s too blue.

Red’s melting away.

Ignore the voters living there

In old New York.

 

He can’t take it there.

Can he make it anywhere?

No thanks to you

New York, New York.

 

Parody of “New York, New York” as performed by Frank Sinatra.

The New Yorker ran an article about Rubio about six weeks ago in which he was asked to identify some regulatory barriers to economic growth.  If you read his response carefully, he was talking, not about federal rules, but about state and local occupational requirements that make it difficult to become, say, a hairdresser.

This is an agenda for which both the left and the right should be able to show some sympathy.  Personally, I think Marco, given his energy and talent, would make a great mayor; it would give him some executive experience, and the need to make pragmatic choices would draw some of the ideological poison out of him. I would take him more seriously as a Presidential candidate if he had this experience first.

 

1. The NBC moderators did an excellent job.  Lester Holt in particular managed to highlight the differences of opinion among the candidates without engaging in useless confrontations.

2. Campaign contributions from wealthy people aren’t as big a problem as Sanders makes them out to be.  Yes, the rich have disproportionate influence on the system, but campaign contributions are a small part of that–otherwise, Jeb Bush would have a commanding lead in the GOP race.  Most of the public opposition to Bernie’s agenda is driven by honest differences of opinion about the role of the state and by identity politics, not by PAC money.  Does Bernie really think that Alabama would be a blue state but for campaign contributions?

3.  Clinton did a decent job of identifying her practical objections to single-payer, but her argument still needs work.  It would have helped if there had been more of a discussion about Vermont’s failed experiment with single-payer. Now that more details of the Sanders plan are known, the debate should come into better focus.

4.  All of the candidates (understandably) were pandering for minority votes.  I don’t dispute that Black Lives Matter has a point about institutional racism in the judicial system (and elsewhere), but we are electing a President, not an absolute monarch;  virtually all of these problems have to be addressed by local leaders, not in Washington.  Since minority votes are absolutely critical to all three candidates, however, no one was going to say that.

5. The parties don’t even agree on what the issues are.  Do you recall any discussion about climate change, or police shootings, at the GOP debate?  Me, neither.

The election process is, in a real sense, just a very public version of a job interview.  The three most important concerns for the electorate are:

1. The resume:  Does the candidate have the requisite experience to do the job?
2. Personal characteristics:  Does the candidate have the right skills and temperament?
3. Business plan (i.e., ideology):  Where does the candidate think we should go from here?

In this post, I will be discussing #2 without reference to ideology, but by using a device common to sports fans who are discussing the merits of particular players in the draft.  For example, if you are the Cleveland Browns in the 2014 draft, and you have a choice between Teddy Bridgewater and Johnny Manziel, the former is a fairly predictable pick with limited distance between his ceiling and floor (a successful game manager, like Alex Smith), while the latter, given his skills, height, and personality issues, could be anyone from Fran Tarkenton (a Hall of Famer) to Ryan Leaf (a complete bust).

With that in mind, what are the ceilings and floors of the most significant remaining candidates?  Here are my choices:

1. Donald Trump:  Ceiling–Huey Long, an outrageous populist who managed to improve conditions for the poor in Louisiana while running roughshod over the system and the law.  Floor–George Wallace, a race-baiting demagogue with no notable accomplishments with which I am familiar.
2. Ted Cruz:  Ceiling– Calvin Coolidge, an austere small government conservative who was fortunate enough to be President during a boom.  Floor–Richard Nixon, with whom he shares similar talents and barely-suppressed hatred of his opponents.  If you have “New York values,” you and millions of others are already on Ted’s enemies list.
3. Marco Rubio:  Ceiling–Barack Obama, also a youthful and inspiring candidate.  Floor–Jimmy Carter, inexperienced in Washington and over his head.
4. Bernie Sanders:  Ceiling–FDR, in the unlikely event he manages to pull off the “Sanders Revolution” and build a new welfare state.  Floor–Harry Truman, speaking plainly about a GOP majority that prevents him from accomplishing anything.
5. Hillary Clinton:  Ceiling and Floor–LBJ.  I have posted on this analogy previously.

Hillary and her surrogates have been voicing some odd objections to Bernie’s single-payer program that have been justly panned by the left-leaning media.  I have to believe that what Hillary really wants to say, but can’t, is that, based on her uniquely painful experience, single-payer is not politically feasible, so there is no reason to discuss it.  The reason she can’t say it is that Sanders would respond by arguing that his “revolution” will make it possible;  how can she say in public that she doesn’t believe his efforts to mobilize support for Democrats among the disaffected poor are doomed to failure?

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

David Brooks left his feelings all bruised.

He called out The Times

For its liberal crimes

I’m guessing he watches Fox News.

The terrorist group known as ISIS

Threw the whole Middle East into crisis.

Its members will kill

For their God and a thrill

Forgive me if I’m a bit biased.

In my opinion, the Obama Administration made three significant mistakes in dealing with ISIS, Iraq, and Syria.  They were:

1. Identifying the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military as a “red line;”
2. Changing course and asking for congressional approval of air strikes; and
3. Underestimating the strength of ISIS and the rottenness of the Iraqi Army in the early stages of the war.

The question for today is whether, in the long run, these mistakes made any real difference in the circumstances on the ground.  Here are my reactions:

1. The “red line” created an open-ended obligation to take military action in Syria. The President, for very good reasons, was extremely reluctant to do that, because he foresaw that a few air strikes would not make much of a difference, and the GOP hawks would have subsequently insisted on sending troops to remove Assad and occupy the country (i.e., Iraq II)  There is no plausible reason to believe that limited air strikes would have caused the fall of the regime, particularly in light of its backing from Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.  The practical result of this mistake, therefore, was a temporary loss of credibility and prestige, but nothing else.
2. Same as #1 above.
3. If we had understood the magnitude of the threat correctly, we would have gone to Maliki and demanded that he clean up his act, and he would have refused. There is no reason to believe that renewed American involvement in the Iraqi military would have been welcomed until the disaster had already occurred. That involvement would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Iraqi government.

In short, Syria and Iraq would still be a mess, and just about the same mess, if the mistakes had not been made.

1.  For long stretches, it sounded more like a GOP pep rally than a debate.  The moderators made very little effort to draw out differences among the candidates, or to attack the weaknesses of their arguments.
2. You know you’re in for a long night when the candidate who exhibited the most humanity was . . . Donald Trump, with his graceful tribute to the people of Manhattan after 9/11.
3. Of the Romney Coalition (i.e., “the establishment”) candidates, Christie clearly had the best showing.  That is actually bad news for the establishment, because Christie has no chance of making any kind of showing outside of New Hampshire.
4. Rubio got the worst of his exchange with Christie and just gave excerpts of his campaign speeches.  That won’t help him in New Hampshire.
5. Does Cruz have an “I hate New York” bumper sticker on his car?  Where does he think his wife’s employer is based?  Does he believe it makes sense to simply write off a large number of electoral votes?
6. I am in equal measures impressed and disgusted by Cruz’ ability to attribute the hostility of David Brooks, a Republican columnist, to the liberals at the NYT.
7. The GOP consensus on foreign policy:  trash talking and defense budget increases will solve all of our problems.  As if.
8.  At least Cruz is willing and able to take on Trump.  Both of them commanded the stage.  Cruz got the best of it on the birther issue;  Trump won on “New York values.”  Call it a draw.

I posted a column a few months ago about how analogizing Trump and Sanders as outsiders did a disservice to Bernie.  It occurred to me this morning that the fundamental difference between the two is that Bernie views himself as being unimportant except to the extent that he is the vessel for a series of ideas, whereas with Trump, the person is the message, and ideas pale next to his general awesomeness.

There once was a Texan named Cruz.

His campaign’s been much in the news.

He took out a loan

Without making it known.

Does it matter?  The voters must choose.

Ross has a column in today’s NYT in which he basically argues that Sanders doesn’t really want to be President because he isn’t willing to rake Hillary Clinton’s muck.  By saying that, he betrays his lack of understanding of the basis for the Sanders campaign.

One of the most attractive things about Bernie is that he isn’t running for President because he needs an ego boost; he is running purely because he has a specific left-wing policy agenda that he wants to implement.  He understands perfectly that he can’t get the agenda through Congress even if he wins the election unless he can mobilize the support of millions of disaffected voters to change the balance of power in both houses, as well.  Hence the emphasis on the “Sanders Revolution;” without the revolution, electoral victory is pointless.

Personal attacks on Hillary don’t move the revolution forward; they only help Republicans (that is, in all likelihood, what is really motivating Douthat).  Don’t expect Sanders to deviate much from this approach in the coming months.