Cromwell

Over time, I have come to believe that Eisenhower is severely underrated as a president, both for what he did and what he didn’t do.

What he did:   Extricated us from a bloody deadlock in Korea; enforced the Supreme Court’s mandate in Brown v. Board of Education (albeit reluctantly); and envisioned the Interstate Highway System, the benefits of which were enormous, and are taken for granted today.

What he didn’t do:  Dismantle the New Deal; cut what were extremely high taxes on wealthy people; start lots of new foreign wars.

Do you see any current GOP candidates who would meet this standard?  Me, neither.

Over the weekend, for some reason, I found myself thinking about a question I had on an exam over 30 years ago.  The test was on “Twelfth Night,” and the question was “Did Malvolio get what he deserved?”  I’m pretty sure I said yes, because he refused to be reconciled with the other characters at the end of the play, but it could reasonably go either way.

From that jumping-off point, I deconstructed centuries of Western thought about the condition of mankind into the following table:

Justice In the World                                     Arbitrary Outcomes

Optimism         Enlightenment philosophy/theology                    Comedy

Pessimism        Protestant sects                                                         Tragedy

“Comedy” falls under “Arbitrary Outcomes” because the characters behave foolishly, but receive a better outcome than they deserve.  In “Tragedy,” on the other hand, flawed but essentially admirable people are punished regardless of the purity of their intentions.  “Enlightenment philosophy/theology” would include Marxism, a range of 18th and 19th Century idealist philosophies, and some relatively new religious sects.  Any Protestant religion influenced by Calvinism would likely fall under Justice/Pessimism.

The thread uniting “Comedy” and “Tragedy” explains why it is possible for a single playwright to be proficient at both.

If you are an Enlightenment/Optimist in this country, you are almost certainly a liberal Democrat.  If you are a Protestant/Pessimist, you are probably a reactionary Republican.  The other two, politically, fall in the middle.

 

There are two world crises happening concurrently.  One of them involves a Russian invasion of a nearby country;  in the other, our traditional allies in the Middle East have responded with force to a new and dangerous military and ideological threat.  The US reaction to the first crisis is to do, essentially, nothing;  our outright opposition to the actions of our allies, including Israel, in the second crisis has damaged important and longstanding strategic relationships.

Is this Barack Obama on Ukraine and Syria in 2014?  Or is it that well-known Republican wimp, Dwight Eisenhower, on Hungary and Suez in 1956?

More thoughts on Eisenhower to follow.

There once was a guv’nor named John.

A purple state mandate he won.

He took Medicaid

For that sin he was flayed

Now his hopes of election are gone.

The candidate known as Scott Walker

Claimed he wasn’t much of a talker.

He said of the crisis

With Iraq and ISIS

“If Marco’s a hawk, then I’m hawker.”

There’s a bear in the woods.

He was pretty obnoxious in 2014.  Most notably, he decided to expand his range into Ukraine, thereby causing widespread chaos and misery.  This year, however, he has been much better behaved.  He hasn’t made any effort to gain more territory in Ukraine, he has started to become friendlier in Syria, and he was downright cuddly in Iran.

Has the bear learned its lesson?  Has he decided the tourists will give him more food if he stops growling at them?

It’s too early to tell.

Both the American and European versions of the Tea Party are groups of reactionaries who believe that their traditional values are under threat from an unholy coalition of foreigners, immigrants, and rich, selfish elites who profit from their dealings with the first two.  Their views of what constitutes “traditional values” varies dramatically, however.

The American franchise has a strong evangelical religious bent and is, therefore, highly moralistic.  European versions, on the other hand, may well view a completely secular state as being a “traditional value.”  Some European reactionaries even take the view that a strong welfare state (for the right people, of course), heavy governmental involvement in business, and extensive regulations favoring labor over capital are “traditional values.”  As a result, an American would have some difficulty describing these as right-wing parties regardless of their similar attitudes on immigration.

 

 

I will have much to say about the Chinese economy and political system in the coming weeks.  In light of the events of the last few days, however, the following observations are pertinent:

1.  Any government that was foolish enough to tie its credibility to ever-rising share prices would be extremely embarrassed by the market crash.  The correction is uniquely troublesome for the Chinese government, however, because its ideology directs it to exercise arbitrary power over everyone and everything in the country.  The notion that the collective decisionmaking power of private investors can prevail over the expressed will of the government is logically inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the political system itself, and could lead to conflict in the future.

2.  The Maoists within the Communist Party, in whose view capitalism and corruption are essentially the same phenomenon, have to be going nuts over this.

3.  Fortunately for the government, it has plenty of fiscal firepower (and the will to use it) to deal with the crisis, so in the long run, this is likely to be a blip on the screen, not a catastrophe.  The lasting implications are likely to be more political than economic.

There are a couple of columns in this week’s Economist which suggest that the Rubio plan for private sector equity investments in the future earnings of students has substantial merit.  I do not think the authors considered all of the implications of this approach for an average student, which include the following:

1.  The typical college student has, at best, a vague concept about what he wants to do with his life.  He may well change majors while in school.  When he leaves school, he will have a variety of career choices, some of which may pay well, and some of which certainly will not.  Everything else being equal, he will (and should) select the ones that are most consistent with his interests and values, which may or may not include maximizing his income.

2.  All of this would be anathema to a prudent equity investor.  He would insist on an enforceable business plan up front, which would have to include standards for grades and a major designed to generate the maximum possible income.  Any significant deviation from this plan would be a default and would require repayment of the investment.  In other words, no changes of major (and forget getting a liberal arts degree), no slacking off, and no going into public service when you leave school.

I think it is fair to call this kind of interference in the life of a college student a form of indentured servitude.  If you were 18 years old and just starting to think seriously about your future, would this appeal to you?

 

We are told that we can compel the international community to renegotiate the Iran deal through the use of sanctions.  Yes, that’s right, the concept is that we would threaten to stop doing business with anyone in the world, friend and foe alike, who refuses to scrap the deal and impose a better one.

Somehow, cutting the world’s largest economy off from all of its chief trading partners doesn’t sound like a great idea, or a credible negotiating strategy.  We would essentially be doing voluntarily to ourselves what the West has done to Russia, with, if anything, even more dire results.

Compared with this, war sounds sensible.  Maybe that was the thought all along.

 

The great would-be emperor Xi

Said that markets would rise steadily.

So the people bought stock

The advice was a crock

Now their losses mount up rapidly.

 

The great would-be emperor Xi

Made threats in the South China Sea.

He tried to build bases

In far away places

Will China prevail?  We’ll see.

The KGB man named Vlad Putin

Invaded Ukraine, you’re darn tootin’

He pissed off the West

Left the ruble a mess

Maybe talking is better than shootin’.

The GOP hawks on Iran

Want to bomb just to prove that they can.

They’d start a new war

What the hell is it for?

It’s more than our country can stand.

You’re Jeb Bush.  Your campaign isn’t going as well as you expected.  While the Trump phenomenon is easily dealt with in the long run, and prevents the Reagan Coalition vote from coalescing behind a more plausible Reactionary candidate, there is no denying that Trump’s fireworks are making you look dull as dishwater.  Worse, the polls are showing that the combination of Reagan Coalition candidates is substantially ahead of the combination of Romney Coalition candidates, and Rubio is almost even with you, so you can’t even count on a victory in your subprimary at this point.  What do you do?

Your principal advantages are establishment connections and, above all, money.  Lots and lots of money.  What can you do with it to turn things around?

While the campaign calendar does not work in your favor, your fundraising gives you the luxury of surviving a string of early defeats.  The answer to the question, then, is to prepare for a lengthy war of attrition.  Pour money into ground operations in states with later primaries and caucuses.  Run plenty of anti-Rubio commercials with the 3 AM phone call theme in an effort to win your subprimary ASAP.  Do not give in to the temptation to waste your money on anti-Trump commercials, because, even if they are a success, his voters will probably prefer Walker or Cruz to you.  Leave Trump to the mercy of the other Reagan Coalition candidates and your friends in the Republican media establishment.