There once was a Texan named Cruz.
His campaign was singing the blues.
He’s stuck in fourth place
This far into the race.
Perhaps he’s perceived as old news.
For the foreseeable future, Tuesday will be Ted’s day on this blog. A substantive posting will follow.
We heard plenty of blather and pablum from both sides of the aisle after the events in Paris, but not much in the way of actual alternatives. Here is my analysis of the commentary:
1. Take the gloves off the air campaign. This alternative from Ted Cruz at least has the merit of being achievable, and I can imagine some incremental changes along those lines. The fact is, however, that we can’t win this battle through strategic bombing alone (you could ask the North Vietnamese about that), and YouTube videos of “crusaders” bombing innocent civilians would be about the most potent recruiting tools for IS that one could contemplate.
2. Work harder with our allies. Duh: we’ve been doing this from the beginning. The problem is that our allies in the Middle East all have higher priorities than defeating IS. In particular, the Saudis are more concerned about Iran, and the Turks would rather fight Assad and the Kurds than help with IS.
3. Make a deal with Assad and the Russians. Yes, we could defeat IS that way, but it would require us to betray our allies in the region, accept Russian leadership in the Middle East, and tolerate Assad’s human rights violations. Not happening.
4. Arm the Kurds. We’re already doing that. The Kurds are reliable allies, but they are only interested in protecting their homeland, and ultimately in declaring independence; don’t expect them to be willing to go much beyond that. Giving more support to them alienates both the Iraqi and Turkish governments.
5. Send a large force of American ground troops to Syria. Yes, we would win the war–but at what cost? And what happens afterwards? Do we take on Assad and risk war with the Russians? If not, what kind of political establishment emerges?
6. Declare war. Jeb’s option–how does that help?????
The fact is that our best option was, and is, to reach an agreement with the Russians for a transitional government that would protect Russian interests, while introducing some element of real democracy to the Syrian political system. The biggest obstacle to this is Putin’s insistence on supporting Assad.
One hates to say it, but in the real world, successful attacks by IS on the Russians may ultimately be the best hope of peace in Syria.
Thomas Friedman is the columnist who famously proclaimed that “the world is flat.” When he is not writing about the impending collapse of the environment, he is usually arguing that, due to technological changes and globalization, no one’s job is safe any more; even everyday employees are now entrepreneurs, whether they like it or not. Milton Friedman was the well-known libertarian economist who advocated for a smaller state.
In listening to Marco Rubio during the last debate, I got the impression that his ideology is a sort of mixture of these two ideas. The notion that inequality in this country is driven by the different treatment of large and small businesses, and that the size of the federal government exacerbates the problem, is very odd at first blush, but if you accept the premise that there is no longer any meaningful distinction between capital and labor in our evolving economy, and that workers are really all just large or small business people, it starts to make sense.
Of course, it is not exactly a coincidence that writing off the distinction between employers and employees serves the GOP’s interests perfectly, and it is doubtful that many people would agree that Thomas Friedman’s utopian/dystopian view of the world is an accurate reflection of most of our economy at the present time (i.e., most of us are not Uber drivers, and most of us do not rent out rooms through Airbnb). Give Rubio credit for his imagination, however.
Talk Like a Republican
The GOP
Will take good care of you and me.
We’ve had enough
Of paying for lots of free stuff.
Our guys are great
It’s Hillary that we really hate.
She’s going down
With all of her friends in DC town.
Oust the bums, cause they’re really dumb.
Talk like a Republican.
If you want to find Donald Trump
He’s standing behind the border wall.
Ted Cruz is, too
Establishment’s really turning blue.
Compromise is done
Cause we know the war is nearly won.
Don’t get in our way
The middle no longer has a say.
Tax cuts with no ifs or buts
Talk like a Republican.
Parody of “Walk Like An Egyptian” by The Bangles. Dedicated this day to Donald Trump, who apparently said that the attacks in Paris could have been prevented if more of the Parisians had guns. Really. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
I’m not at all sure that I will watch tonight’s debate, but here are some questions I wish the moderators would address to the Bern:
The religious wars in Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries burned themselves out. The wave of anarchist bombings and assassinations at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th Century that resembled the events of the past year eventually died out. While Iran certainly continues to present problems, it is no longer the Islamic revolutionary state that it was in 1979; it is simply a conventional state pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, just like all of the others.
We will ultimately prevail over this menace. It will take time and patience and discipline and carefully directed force, but we will win, because the terrorists have nothing worthwhile to offer as an alternative.
In the meantime, there are no quick and easy answers, so don’t be disappointed if you don’t hear any in the next few days. Show your disgust by all means, but overreacting and searching for scapegoats is counterproductive.
In a rare lucid moment, Marco Rubio noted that the Republicans will be making a mistake if they make the election a contest of resumes, because none of the GOP candidates has a more compelling resume than Hillary. Since Fiorina has made little or no effort to stake out any ideological positions that set her apart from her GOP rivals, however, it would appear that her case to be the nominee consists of the following:
As many people (not just Trump) have pointed out, her CEO background is, at best, a mixed bag. I, of course, would maintain that running a business is in no way analogous to running the government, so I wouldn’t be impressed by this line of reasoning even if it were unequivocally true. As to #2, I can’t argue with the premise, but while being female could help her in the general election, it isn’t much of a reason for the electorate to make her the leader of the free world.
Yes, under three conditions:
Having established the timeframes for GOP radicalization, it becomes easier to assign causes for it. In my opinion, it was driven by the following:
1. The proliferation of right-wing media: The number of channels on cable TV has increased substantially since the early 90’s, and then, of course, we had the internet. The country is now full of right-wing megaphones with a powerful incentive to out-shout their competitors, and GOP voters can get the news without exposing themselves to moderate opinions in the MSM, which was much more difficult previously.
2. The impacts of technological change and globalization: Some culturally conservative men who voted Democrat in a different age lost their jobs and slipped into the Reactionary camp. That is the reason the debate on protectionism now takes place within the GOP, not among the Democrats.
3. The increasing impact of large donors with specific agendas on labor rights and climate change after Citizens United: No elaboration necessary.
4. They really, really hate Obama: Radicalization only occurs when the GOP is out of power. We have reached the point where many GOP members will even repudiate positions they held years ago simply because Obama agrees with them.
Can this process be reversed? Tune in tomorrow.
The obvious choice would be Sarah Palin, which leads to a question: is it possible for both candidates on the same ticket to go rogue at the same time?
My overall impressions were as follows:
Reviews for the candidates:
1. John Kasich: Aggressively pursued his “adult in the room” stance–maybe to the point of rudeness. Had some good moments as the somewhat moderate conscience of the group, but needs to stop talking so much about his Congressional experience in the 1990’s and the Ohio Miracle.
2. Jeb Bush: Was more forceful than in past debates, but still looks like a guppy in a shark tank.
3. Marco Rubio: Managed to avoid difficult questions. Was not challenged on the use of his GOP credit card. Probably got the better of the exchange with Rand Paul on the issue of military spending in the eyes of the audience. Appears to have some very extreme views about the nature of work and the economy in the 21st Century; I plan to address these in a future post. Hates philosophers.
4. Donald Trump: Stayed in character throughout the debate. His uber-realist views on foreign policy will also be the subject of a future post. Didn’t help himself by arguing that wages are too high, and that the TPP will somehow help the Chinese.
5. Ben Carson: Is totally economically illiterate, but do his supporters really care?
6. Ted Cruz: Did his usual extremist thing.
7. Carly Fiorina: Sounds more like a bean counter than a politician, particularly when she goes on and on about zero-based budgeting. Most interesting point is to blame the GOP, as well as the Democrats, for our current dystopia.
8. Rand Paul: As usual, interspersed arguments that make perfect sense with complete whoppers (Blue state governors and mayors cause inequality? Huh?)
You need to take this on an issue-by-issue basis in order to give the topic justice.
1. Taxes: The GOP has always emphasized small government, but it was far more interested in balanced budgets than in tax cuts prior to Reagan. Even Reagan didn’t consider tax cuts to be the object of religious veneration. When Bush 41 lost the 1992 election after breaking his promise on tax increases, however, the party concluded that all future increases of any kind were anathema, and that tax cutting was the very essence of being a Republican. Nothing about that has changed since the early 90’s; if anything, the tax cut proposals have become more and more irresponsible over time.
2. Crime and social issues: Richard Nixon wrote the playbook on these issues, which haven’t changed much in 40 years.
3. Nihilistic legislative tactics: Newt Gingrich was the innovator here. Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus are just his disciples.
4. Climate change: John McCain supported cap and trade in 2008. That seems like a long, long time ago.
5. Attacks on “free stuff” for the poor: Some of this came up during the debate on welfare reform during the Clinton Administration, but Bush 43 was a “compassionate conservative.” Since 2008, we have had “conservatism” without the “compassion.”
6. Militaristic foreign policy: Prior to the late 1960’s, it was the Democrats who believed more firmly in foreign military adventures. That changed during the Nixon Administration. The parties are still, in some ways, fighting the battles of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
7. Entitlement cuts: A serious conversation on this subject started during Bush 43, but has accelerated dramatically since 2008. Entitlement cuts are now the orthodox position within the GOP.
As you can see, there are a few issues on which the GOP position has not changed much since the 1960’s, but in most cases, its stance has hardened substantially since the beginning of the Clinton Administration, and particularly over the last several years. I will discuss the reasons for this tomorrow.
The debates have gotten to the point where it is easy to imagine them as a sitcom. The characters are obvious: the well-meaning but inept Father Jeb; crazy Uncle Donald; sharp-tongued Aunt Carly; sleepy Grandpa Ben; et. al. Unfortunately, one of these characters is going to have a reasonable shot at running our country next year.
My normal practice has been to lay out the principal issues for the debate, but the NYT did a really good job with that this morning, so I will abstain, with one exception: Marco and his credit card issue. Most of the attacks on Rubio’s finances have been fairly lame, and he has turned them to his advantage, but this one could be different, simply because there is a fairly obvious analogy to Hillary and her use of a private server for public business. Will any of the candidates see the analogy and use it? We’ll see.
The readers of this blog may be surprised to hear that I am a registered Independent, not a Democrat, and that I have even voted for GOP candidates for President in the past. I sometimes marvel that I have moved to the left as I have grown older, but the truth is that I haven’t; it is the Republican Party that has moved away from the center.
What would the GOP have to do to make me take them seriously? Here is a list:
Is that too much to ask? Probably.
The fact is, Republicans were not always like this. I will be discussing their movement to the right, and what it would take to reverse it, in subsequent posts.
(They sound like a right-wing rock band. Ted Nugent could play with them)
As far as I can tell, there are actually two branches in the neocon family. The first group, which predominated during the Iraq War era, believes that American interests (and, indeed, the interests of all people) ultimately require that American economic and political values be transplanted throughout the world, sometimes by force. The second group adheres to what could be described as a “community policing” model on a world-wide scale; its adherents maintain that American military power is necessary to address issues regardless of whether they impact American core interests because, due to the increased mobility of people and ideas, someone else’s small problem can quickly become our big problem.
Rubio has aligned himself with the neocons, but it isn’t completely clear which of the two branches he favors. There is no doubt that he wants to make human rights issues a bigger part of our dealings with China and Cuba, which suggests that he wants to impose American exceptionalism on the world, but I haven’t heard him say anything about spreading democracy in the Middle East, possibly because the situation there is so far gone that even bringing back stability may take a magic trick.
The first group has been discredited to the point that its views do not require a rebuttal. The second group, on the other hand, is alive and well; I will be addressing their ideas in a later post. For present purposes, suffice it to say that the activism of a Rubio Administration would result in more American involvement in conflicts around the globe.