Cromwell

There once was a VP named Dick.

Fighting Middle East wars was his shtick.

His poorly-laid plans

Helped empower Iran

Would a follow-up war do the trick?

If Brent Scowcroft agrees with you, you are probably right.

If Dick Cheney agrees with you, reassess your position immediately.

On reflection, Cheney, the butt-kicking chicken hawk businessman, is something of a model for Donald Trump.  I will discuss that further in a later post on Trump’s foreign policy views.

There once was a woman named Carly.

Her GOP foes viewed her warily.

They said she was great

In the first live debate

But Trump thought she looked pretty gnarly.

Who said he’s a low energy guy?

Jeb! released his tax cut plan earlier this week.  In a nutshell, it provides enormous cuts for the wealthy and modest relief for everyone else.  It also contains limitations on deductions over certain income thresholds and eliminates the “carried interest” loophole for hedge fund managers.  In economic terms, and in the context of the other, much larger, decreases, the latter proposals are more symbolic than anything else.

Having said that, in politics, symbols matter, which leads to two questions:

1.  What is Jeb! trying to accomplish with these concessions to popular opinion?
2.  Will he succeed?

I think Jeb! is making a concerted effort to position himself as the adult in the room who is willing to reach out to Democrats and Independents in order to get things done.  This, in turn, is intended to appeal to PBP voters who are concerned that the rhetoric from the right is damaging the GOP’s image among moderate general election voters.  In other words, vote for me, because I am the only GOP candidate who can actually win in 2016.

This approach should appeal to more moderate voters.  On the other hand, it will turn off the WSJ/supply sider crowd, who may then decide that the Rubio plan, in spite of its unhealthy (in their eyes) interest in cutting taxes for working people, is superior.  The Jeb! plan, in short, should be viewed as a political gamble that will only work if the WSJ and the donor class decide to give him a pass for tactical reasons.  Whether it will succeed or not will be seen in the next few weeks.

In their own separate ways, Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina are both bringing back the tired old proposal to “run government like a business” to the campaign.  For Trump, a real estate developer, government, like his business, is primarily a dealmaking process in which the best (i.e., the most aggressive) negotiator wins.  For Fiorina, the former CEO of a tech company, the problem with government is its inefficiency, which can be resolved with (surprise!) better use of technology.

The problem with this is that government is not a business.  In economic terms, it is a monopoly that is designed to provide goods and services for consumers regardless of their ability to pay for them.  Its essential objectives are to dispense justice, provide security, and promote the general welfare (a concept open to much debate), as opposed to simply making the largest possible profit.  The American system further diffuses power instead of concentrating it, and emphasizes transparency and fairness over speed and agility.  Its success or failure is not subject to easy quantification–there is no “bottom line.”

As a result, anyone who is elected to “run government like a business,” and anyone who selects a candidate on that basis, is doomed to disappointment.

Planned Parenthood, that is.

PP is an issue that divides the Reactionaries and the PBPs.   The former loathe abortion unconditionally because it eliminates a necessary sanction on immoral sexual behavior;  the latter are more or less indifferent to the moral elements of abortion, but see the “War on Women” as a tactical mistake that may ultimately cost them the election and deprive them of tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

The Reactionaries are clearly getting restless.  As noted in a previous post, the PBPs have reaped almost all of the practical benefits from the PBP/Reactionary coalition.  Look for the Reactionaries to fight for a government shutdown over this issue on October 1, and for the PBPs to make a deal with the Democrats to avoid the shutdown, as usual.  That will lead to even greater conflict among the GOP presidential candidates, and more excitement at the debates.

1.  It has been demonstrated time after time that the support of white liberals alone is not sufficient to get the Democratic Party nomination.  I strongly suspect that Elizabeth Warren decided not to run largely because she is aware of that fact.  The Sanders candidacy is ultimately doomed because it has no appeal to the rest of the party.
2. I think it would be very useful if the Democrats had a candidate who would discuss the need to rethink and rework the welfare state in light of technological change (i.e., the “gig economy”) and globalization.  For example, does it really make sense in today’s world to tie the cost of Medicare and Social Security solely to the payment of wages?  And is it a good idea for Obamacare to include an employer mandate?  Sanders is too tied to the past to have this discussion.

The Democrat maverick named Bern.

To the left the whole country he’d turn.

Attacking the rich,

He would grumble and bitch

Their large incomes were mostly unearned.

 

 

Labor Day is so mid Twentieth Century.  Globalization, technological advances, and the shift to a more services-oriented economy have emasculated labor as a political power in this country, and pretty much throughout the world.  Today, if I can’t buy a machine to get my products out, I can just make a quick call to someone in China or India, and the problem goes away.

Today, we live in a more enlightened age, where it is universally recognized that the greatness of America was built, not on labor, but on the backs of risk-taking job creators.  As a result, I would propose to replace Labor Day with Capital Day, to feature the following:

1.  Capital Day will be a holiday on capital gains taxes, not a day off for workers.
2.  All regulations favoring workers over business owners, including the minimum wage, are suspended for the day.
3.  Parades celebrating local businessmen (theme:  “they built this”) will be held all over the country.
4. There will be a ticker tape parade for hedge fund managers and bond traders in Manhattan.
5. In schools all over America, children will be required to read “Atlas Shrugged” and recite from Mitt Romney’s 47 percent speech.

I made all of this up, of course.  Or did I?

 

We don’t need no transfer union.

We don’t need no refugees.

No desperate children at our borders.

Leaders, keep them people out.

Hey!  Leaders, keep them people out.

 

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

All in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.

And so it goes, on and on, all over the world, with no end in sight.

 

 

 

The Chinese are having a huge military parade today to celebrate the victory of Communist forces over the Japanese colonialists in 1945.  Of course, there are a few small problems with this narrative:

1.  While the Chinese suffered horrific losses during the war and contributed to the anti-Japanese effort by tying up troops, the decisive blows were inflicted not by them, but by the Americans.
2. The Communist contribution to the war effort was relatively minimal.  The vast majority of the losses were borne by the Nationalists.

Oh, well.  I’m sure it was a great show.  And it was timely, too, in light of the government’s recent economic failures, which have to be causing consternation (and, in all likelihood, some infighting) at the highest levels of the Communist Party.

China is a one-party state, but that doesn’t mean that debate disappears–it is just driven underground.  Look for the following in the next few weeks:

1.  Don’t be surprised if we see some wag-the-dog nationalism in an effort to change the subject from the market correction.
2. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with the anti-corruption campaign.  If the number of “tigers” being prosecuted drops significantly, it will suggest that Xi’s support in the party has declined as a result of recent events.  If it increases, that could mean infighting has increased.  If nothing happens, then it is business as usual.

You’re Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP.  The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence failed by a fairly narrow margin, but you won a very substantial victory in the general election that followed.  Scottish independence within the EU is your ultimate objective.

David Cameron cannot rely on his hold on the Conservative Party to win the  EU referendum, so he is going to be calling for assistance from the leaders of the other parties.  Labour is a mess, and cannot be counted on for anything, which makes your position all the more important.  If the voters opt out of the EU, your argument for a second independence referendum becomes infinitely stronger.  Do you:

1. Give unconditional support to the government’s position to stay in the EU, and thereby damage your case for independence?
2. Oppose the government’s position in the interests of strengthening your argument for independence, and thereby expose yourself to allegations of opportunism and hypocrisy?
3. Attempt to barter your support for the referendum in exchange for new powers in Scotland, or even a second independence referendum?
4. Take an equivocal position in public and hope your supporters will understand they should vote tactically against EU membership?

I would bet on #3 or #4, but this will be very interesting.

There once was a PM named Dave.

The UK he worked hard to save.

But the SNP said

That the union was dead.

Will the Scots push it into the grave?

Republicans get the day off today.  A post regarding the EU referendum and what it means for Scottish independence will follow.

Historically, when the GOP wins an election, the PBPs get what they want out of the bargain–power, tax cuts, and deregulation.  Reactionaries, however, typically get some warm words on abortion, and, well, nothing else.

This is largely due to the fact that the PBP agenda can be accomplished fairly easily through our political system, whereas the Reactionary wish list includes items that require constitutional amendments or, in some cases, are actually outside the political realm (i.e., victory in the culture wars).  Nevertheless, this means that, in practice, Reactionary voters have been little more than cannon fodder for the PBP agenda.

Under these circumstances, is it surprising that the Reactionaries are getting restless?  Does it make sense for them to behave “responsibly” in the name of winning the next election when the only real winners are the PBPs?