Cromwell

Does anyone out there believe that Maduro will agree to follow democratic norms?  Me, neither.

(In light of recent events, this is the first of a series of postings on guns in America.)

As we know only too well, our country has more guns, and experiences more gun violence, than any nation on the planet that is not in the middle of a civil war. This is true even when we are compared with countries that are roughly geographically and culturally comparable (Australia and Canada).  Why?

I think there are three reasons:

1.  Standing armies and central government tyranny were linked in the eyes of many of the Patriots in the American Revolution, so the widespread ownership of guns and the use of militias is in our political DNA.  It is not surprising that some right-wingers view private gun ownership as a check against the unwarranted usurpation of power by the federal government, given the history of this issue.  You would not see that, or a Second Amendment, in other countries.

2.  The American political system gives an unusual amount of power to rural states in which gun ownership is extremely important.  I don’t think rural voters have the same degree of clout at the federal level in Canada and Australia as they do here.  As a result, it is very difficult to pass gun control legislation in the US even under the best of circumstances.

3.  There is a clear correlation between right-wing Christian evangelicals and passion for gun ownership that doesn’t exist in more secular countries.  The theological basis for this is unclear to me, but there is a reason why the bumper sticker tells us that “God, guns, and guts made America great.”

 

Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but I would go with Jeb!, because he wasn’t a terrible governor, and he comes across as being a fundamentally decent and thoughtful guy who wouldn’t be in a huge hurry to engage in foreign adventures.  In other words:

1. He sounds more like his father than his brother; and
2. The qualities that make him a lousy candidate in today’s superheated political environment could actually make him a tolerable President.

Marco occasionally displays some flashes of insight about the workings of the world in the 21st Century, but his obvious ambition and opportunism turn me off.  Elect him, and you have no idea what you are getting, other than a man who literally sweats both the large and the small stuff.

The senator from my home state

Holds views that I find less than great.

He lusted for power

Said this was his hour

I think that he’ll just have to wait.

In the ongoing maelstrom, it seems to have escaped everyone’s attention that the Republicans have a potential candidate with all of the right credentials.  This man:

1.  Is a proven winner of elections;
2.  Is beloved by the entire party, and by some Democrats, as well;
3.  Has as much swagger as all of the present GOP candidates combined;
4.  Has a long record of defying Obama;
5.  Believes in peace through strength, not negotiations; and
6.  Is impeccably right-wing on economic issues.

There is just one small catch:  he is the Prime Minister of Israel.  Surely a way can be found around that obstacle.

Draft Netanyahu!

During the last Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders jabbed Hillary on the issue of campaign contributions from big banks.  She responded by wrapping herself in the 9/11 flag in a fundamentally ridiculous way that rightly prompted scorn from commentators on both sides of the aisle.

The issue of bank size is important and is worthy of a more sophisticated analysis than that.  The principal questions, and my responses, follow:

1.  Why did the big banks grow during the financial crisis?  The government, in the interests of stability during a very unstable time, encouraged (some would say compelled) acquisitions of troubled institutions by stronger banks.  The alternatives (using even more taxpayer money on bailouts, or letting the banks fail and living with the unpredictable consequences) were even less palatable.

2.  What exactly is the problem with having big banks?  Normally, the concern with size would revolve around the concentration of economic power, but no one is suggesting that, say, Goldman Sachs has anything like a monopoly on financial services.  The real issue is the amount damage the banks can do when they fail.

3.  Are there any advantages to having big banks?  Absolutely.  Big banks can diversify their holdings, thereby reducing the likelihood of failure.  Big banks have more ability to operate and make money on a global basis, as well.  Financial services are a major source of wealth in our economy.

4.  Can the banks be broken up without new legislation?  To my knowledge, no, and the prospects for any such legislation in a Congress with a Republican House majority are abysmal.

5.   Are the protections against big bank failures in Dodd-Frank adequate?  No one will know until they are tested.  The only thing you can say at this point is that they address the issue in a logical way, and could conceivably work, if properly implemented.

6.  What, if anything, would Hillary’s Wall Street contributions mean in a Clinton Administration?  The more honest answer to the issue raised by Sanders would have been that any senator from New York would be obligated to protect the interests of her Wall Street constituents.  In any event, recent history strongly suggests that the vast majority of the Wall Street contributions in 2016 will go to Republicans, not to Hillary.

7.  If it is legally and practically impossible to break up the banks, what is the point of being concerned about this?  There could be some legitimate concern about influence being applied relative to the writing and enforcement of rules.  That’s about it.

In my opinion, the best course of action is to continue to implement Dodd-Frank and see what happens.  In other words, I don’t agree with Sanders on this point.

In a previous post, I suggested that Carly Fiorina adopt Mrs. Thatcher as a role model, since Reagan isn’t really workable.  Here are the reasons it won’t happen:

1.  Mrs. Thatcher was a career politician and was clearly motivated by conservative ideology.  Fiorina is a businesswoman whose primary interest is in dealing with money.
2.  Whether you liked her or not (I didn’t), you had to admit that Mrs. Thatcher governed with a certain joie de vivre; she visibly enjoyed the cut-and-thrust of political battle.  Fiorina just comes across as a humorless beancounter.

As I understand it, the NRA basically believes that Second Amendment rights are absolute, because any measure of regulation creates a potential slippery slope. This logically means that Islamic extremists in our country have the same right to buy and use guns as everyone else.

Imagine a scenario in which young Muslim men carrying AK-47s are seen on TV standing guard over mosques throughout the country in response to threats from right-wingers. I strongly suspect that there would be a sudden spurt of support for gun control measures, even among GOP voters, and contributions to the NRA would decline dramatically.

Hey, it worked with the Black Panthers in the 1960’s.  It could work again.

Ross Douthat’s Sunday NYT column discussed the similarities and differences between the ongoing conflict in Syria and the Spanish Civil War.  While the analogy is by no means absurd (it occurred to me months ago), Douthat’s (correct) conclusion that the situation is likely to remain a stalemate for some time to come is evidence that the more appropriate analogy is to the Thirty Years’ War, as I suggested in a post in, I believe, August.

A Reactionary is someone who is attempting to use the political process to return society to a perceived Golden Age in which traditional values were properly respected.  This can be done through democratic or non-democratic means.  A Fascist pursues the Reactionary substantive agenda through unconstitutional mechanisms:  the press is shut down; the legislature is typically eliminated; individual legal rights are ignored; a cult of personality is created around the leader; and enemies are neutralized through the use of violence.

While some of Trump’s rhetoric is undoubtedly consistent with fascism, I don’t see any real evidence yet that either he or his constituents have given up on the democratic process or the rule of law.

For all of the ink that is being spilled on this subject, it’s really very simple.  As I noted in one of my earliest posts, the GOP electorate has always responded to swagger:  that is, the constant expression of simple and forceful opinions without any sign of hesitation or doubt by men who appear to be willing and able to kick butt if and whenever necessary.  Trump has simply taken this to the point where his swagger is virtually the entire message; consistency and ideology are almost beside the point.

You can argue that this makes Trump a caricature of a Republican, not the real deal, and you might be right.  God knows there’s nothing in his background as a semi-successful developer that logically entitles him to portray himself as a man on horseback.  These are unusual times, however, so it is possible that none of that will matter when the process is played out.

 

               All Along the Border Wall

“We’ve got to keep them out of here.”

Said the Trumpster to Ted Cruz.

“There’s too much crime here.

Too many more jobs to lose.”

 

“Businessmen, they send me funds.

Pastors tend my flock.

But none of them along the line

Understands it’s all a crock.”

 

“No reason to get frustrated.”

Ted Cruz he sharply spoke.

“There are many in our country

Who think that we’re all just a joke.”

 

“But you and I, we’ve fought through that.

We deal in hate and fear.

So let us both talk falsely now

The election’s getting near.”

 

All along the border wall

Drones kept the view.

Electric fences going up

Alligators, too.

 

Outside in the cold distance

The refugees did cry.

Two smugglers were approaching

The voters watched and sighed.

 

Parody of “All Along the Watchtower” by Bob Dylan.

Once in Berlin

Once in Berlin

A vast army held sway.

And woe be to you

If you got in its way.

 

Once in Berlin

An empire was created.

The neighbors weren’t happy.

Was less loved than hated.

 

Once in Berlin

A great war would begin.

The people exulted.

They were sure they would win.

 

Once in Berlin

The war didn’t go well.

The people were sentenced

To decades of hell.

 

Once in Berlin

People lived for today.

But storm clouds were rising

Outside cabaret.

 

Once in Berlin

Several failed revolutions.

The country lurched rightward.

A Final Solution.

 

Once in Berlin

The war started again.

The populace suffered

Through five years of pain.

 

Once in Berlin

The war ran into trouble.

Casualties mounted.

The streets filled with rubble.

 

Once in Berlin

The Allies decided

To split up the profits.

The city divided.

 

Once in Berlin

A great wall was built.

And if you defied it

You’d likely be killed.

 

Once in Berlin

The wall finally came down.

You could hear celebrations

All over the town.

 

Now in Berlin

New walls made out of glass.

Divisions extinguished.

The nightmare has passed.

 

Now in Berlin

They control the EU.

What worlds will they conquer?

What else can they do?

 

 

We live in times troubled by anger and doubt.

The left is just grumbling; the right screams and shouts.

No matter who wins, the rich keep the clout.

It’s hard to find things to give thanks about.

 

But think upon this:  we’ve been through much worse.

Our drift and stagnation can be reversed.

Your point is well-taken; there’s lots to be leery of

But you can be thankful you don’t live in Syria.

 

I will be out of the country for a week, so my blogging may be unusually limited.

Ross has a post in yesterday’s NYT in which he advises us not to ignore the “joy” that the ISIS terrorists get from their theology.  As usual, some of what he says is accurate, but there are some significant omissions from his analysis that are worthy of further discussion.

The genius of liberal democracy is that it puts up as few barriers as possible to the individual search for transcendence.  Ours may be a predominantly secular society, but if you are a Catholic seeking to live like St. Jerome, or a Muslim attempting to display his piety in the most rigorous way possible, our government is not going to do anything to stop you.  Since France is a more aggressively secular country than the US for historical reasons, I have no doubt that the situation is more difficult there, but the general proposition would still be true.

Where liberal democracy fails, from the perspective of the religious zealot, is that it makes it difficult for the zealot to impose his views on others.   If you insist that you are not “free” if you cannot require everyone else to live the same way you do, you are going to be frustrated here.  But is that really “freedom,” and is the zealot/terrorist entitled to any sympathy from us?  My answer, emphatically, is no.