Cromwell

Foreign policy has become far more partisan in recent years.  However, the best guide to the country’s foreign policy at any given time is the personality and the individual beliefs of the President, not his party affiliation.

You can put this in a graph.  One axis would run from active to passive, while the other would run from values to interests.  All of our Presidents would fit in one quadrant or another.  Some examples would be as follows:

Passive/interests:  Obama and George H. W. Bush

Passive/values:  Jimmy Carter

Active/interests:  Richard Nixon

Active/values:  George W. Bush (campaigned in 2000 as passive/interests)

Clinton and Reagan are a bit harder to categorize.  While his rhetoric suggested otherwise, Reagan was actually quite reluctant to engage in military adventures after the debacle in Lebanon, so I would call him only slightly active/values.  Clinton would also be slightly active/values, given Rwanda and Bosnia.

It’s a process, not an ideology, and every litigation lawyer is familiar with it.  When confronted with an issue, you ask the following questions:

1.  What are my chances of attaining a successful outcome?

2.  What do I have to gain?

3.  What is my exposure?

Based on the answers to these questions, you identify the course of action that is the most likely to accomplish most of what you want at the least amount of cost and risk.  Typically, this involves settlement, because going to trial leads to an unacceptable element of unpredictability.

This is a case-by-case form of analysis that has no appeal to people who view the world in black and white terms.   It also rarely results in anything like total victory.  On the other hand, it makes complete disasters very unlikely, and is extremely cost-effective.

Hence, the preference for diplomacy, the use of proxies, and the emphasis on small-scale military actions (drones, special forces, etc.) in lieu of costlier and riskier large-scale interventions.

 

I wanted to write a hip-hop musical like “Hamilton” about the debate, but I don’t have that kind of talent, and these guys aren’t worth it, anyway.  I offer the following instead:

There once was a Texan named Cruz

Whose campaign had nothing to lose.

Lambasting the field

Refusing to yield

He said “I’m the one you should choose!”

 

Thus said the man they call Huck,

“Entitlement cuts really suck.

I love the unborn

All their deaths I do mourn

Too bad my campaign’s out of luck.”

 

There once was a guv’nor named Bush

His poll numbers needed a push.

While he has so much money

It’s not even funny

His speeches are duller than mush.

 

There once was a young man named Marco

Whose campaign required a spark-o.

He claimed to be new

What else could he do?

The age of his views were all dark-o.

 

There once was a doctor named Ben

Who made a large fortune, and then

He said to the poor

“All the pains you endure

Are due to your own fault, I ken.”

 

The GOP stalwart named Rand

Said Washington was out of hand.

He wanted to cut

Virtually everything but

There were too many lines in the sand.

 

There once was a Donald named Trump

Who played all the public for chumps.

He scowled and he blustered

His foes were lackluster

He left them all down in the dumps.

For about the first hour, I thought I was watching a bull-baiting, not a debate.  It might have had the intellectual heft of a Twinkie, but it certainly was compelling TV.

It is becoming clear that Donald Trump believes he can overcome all of his past heresies and all of his logical inconsistencies with pure, unadulterated swagger.  As long as the format permits him to avoid any kind of extensive cross-examination, he may be right.  My guess is that the winnowing of the field and the cumulative effect of commercials highlighting his inconsistencies that will be forthcoming in due time will ultimately destroy his candidacy, but that will not happen overnight.

Winners, losers, and also-rans:

Winners:

Trump:   Came across as the most compelling candidate in the field, no matter how ridiculous his ideas are.

John Kasich:   Articulated the Christian Democrat position better than Jeb Bush, and was rewarded for it by the hometown crowd.

Mike Huckabee:   Had some of the best lines of the night and was forceful without sounding angry.

Losers:

Jeb Bush:  No big mistakes, but no swagger.  His backers have to be worried.  Sooner or later, someone has to mention that his accomplishments in Florida were the product of a huge real estate bubble, and he can’t blame the federal government for the aftermath, because his brother was President at the time.

Chris Christie:  His usual bellicosity was lost in Trump’s exhaust.  His exchanges with Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee were draws at best.

Also-Rans

Ted Cruz:   Made his anti-establishment pitch clearly and forcefully, but it, too, disappeared in the Trump supernova.  Does he really believe that he can get elected without reaching out to anyone outside of the hard right?

Ben Carson:  Tentative and unremarkable, although he improved as the night went on.

Rand Paul:  Gave and took about equally.

Marco Rubio:  Made some effort to talk about real world problems and made his case for being new blood, but his statements on abortion are going to cost him dearly if he is the nominee.

Scott Walker:  Showed a reasonable command of the facts, but did not swagger particularly effectively.  There is something about this man’s personality that I find deeply disagreeable.  If someone ever makes a horror movie with an evil Eagle Scout protagonist, Walker should be the star.

I have been puzzled for years as to why there has been such limited support for protectionism within the Democratic Party, given the impact of globalization on the incomes of the party’s working class constituents during the last two decades.  Thanks to Donald Trump, I think I now have the answer:  a disproportionate number of the beneficiaries of protectionist policies would be white men working in manufacturing who, for a variety of reasons, have become Republicans.

Never fear, free traders:  the WSJ and the other ideological enforcers within the GOP are never going to permit the leadership of the party to embrace protectionism.  That said, we may have a very interesting discussion on the subject during the debates over the next several months.

1.  Immigration (legal and otherwise);

2.  Education;

3.  Protectionism (to be discussed in a post tomorrow);

4.  Government support for business (subsidies, bailouts, tax preferences, etc.);  and

5.  Overseas military interventions.

Most of these pit the Pro-Business Pragmatists against the Reactionaries, which is why the Reagan Coalition is harder to pull off than the Romney Coalition.

The debate is only a day away!  Comedians everywhere are rubbing their hands with glee.

Some things to look for:

1.  How aggressively will the panel question the candidates?  Historically, the Fox News panels have been surprisingly effective in dealing with Republican candidates.  Expect that to continue tomorrow.

2.  How will the candidates react to the panel?  One of the ways Republican candidates have traditionally shown off their swagger is by attacking the panel.  Doing this with a group of Fox News journalists who have at least as much credibility with the right-wing public as they do would be very dangerous.  This could help Rubio, whose lack of swagger is a big liability.

3.  How will Donald Trump handle himself?  Trump will be walking a tightrope here:  he will disappoint his audience if he doesn’t perform to his outrageous, unscripted campaign persona, but he can’t afford to alienate the panel or look uninformed.   He would be wise to use all of his ammunition on the Democrats.

4.  How will the other candidates deal with Trump?  At this debate, I think the better practice would be to ignore him and see if the panel will expose his weaknesses.

5.  Which candidate will lead the breakaway, and will the peleton reel him in?  It certainly won’t be Bush, Walker, or Rubio.  Chris Christie could try it, but I don’t think he will.  Bet on Ted Cruz, and don’t expect him to back down, because he has nothing to lose with the GOP establishment.

6.  What characters will the candidates be playing?  Here are some of them:

Jeb Bush:  Lord Grantham of GOP Abbey

Scott Walker:  Ronald Reagan’s Undiscovered Son

Ted Cruz:  Mr. Tea Party Goes to Washington

Ben Carson:  Horatio Alger

Marco Rubio:  Mr. Fresh Face with New Ideas

Rand Paul:  Harpo Marx

Donald Trump:  Himself, of course

7.  Who has to play Cecil the Lion?  TBD.

So let me get this straight:  the Republicans are threatening to shut down the federal government (a proven vote loser) in order to defund Planned Parenthood (and thereby reignite their unpopular “War on Women”) even though none of the funds in question are used for abortion?  That is bad policy and stupid politics.

Thank God these people choose to use their beloved Second Amendment rights on themselves.

 

Where other countries have men on horseback, we have egomaniac billionaires.  I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky.

1.  Events have reached the point where even the German leadership admits the Greek debt is unsustainable, but the parties have done nothing meaningful to change their positions in the negotiations over debt relief.  How ridiculous is that?

2.  A large part of the problem here is that there is no bankruptcy process (i.e., one ultimately guided by an independent third party using a well-established body of law) for the parties to use.  Instead, all decisions result from negotiations between parties with decidedly unequal bargaining power.  The unsatisfactory outcome of that process was and is inevitable.

3.  The essential difference between Greece and the other EU bailout recipients is that Greece had both a governmental overspending/credibility crisis and a euro-driven private sector bubble, while the others only had the latter.  If you are looking for reasons why the Greeks are in a bigger bind than the Spanish and the Irish today (life isn’t exactly paradise in those countries, either), start there.

4.  In retrospect, the Greek government would have been better served if it had sucked up to the Germans and conceded that their system needed a complete overhaul to be more, well, Germanic, in exchange for some debt relief.  Instead, they turned the issue into an EU referendum on austerity, and lost.

Fast forward to 2017.  Having successfully (at least in their eyes) dealt with the Greece question, the Germans have been pestering the French to reduce their deficit and institute “structural reforms” for the last 18 months.  Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Marine Le Pen are running for president.

Ms. Le Pen makes roughly the following argument to the French electorate:

“For years, the Germans have been telling us we have to become more like them–work harder, spend less, and save more. M. Sarkozy agrees with that, and will work hand in hand with the Germans to dismantle the social protections that we consider to be an essential part of our culture.  M. Hollande can’t make up his mind; sometimes he half-heartedly stands up to the Germans, but sometimes he goes along with them and tries to pretend that we are equal partners in austerity.  As a result, he accomplishes nothing, and the EU has become nothing but a German empire.

If you don’t want to give up your August vacations on the Riviera, your long lunches, and your 35 hour work week, there is only one candidate who will stand up for you and for France–me.”

It is just about a foregone conclusion at this point that Le Pen and Sarkozy will be in the run-off.  The widespread assumption is that the establishment will stand firm for Sarkozy, and he will win.  Personally, I think that Le Pen’s argument is going to resonate with French workers, and I wouldn’t bet the ranch that she will lose.  If that turns out to be the case, life in the EU is going to get even more interesting than it is now.

1.  The Germans never wanted to give up the mark.  They were talked into it by the French, who viewed it as an essential part of the effort to build an “ever closer union.”  To the German people in 2015, an “ever closer union” almost certainly means a “transfer union,” and they don’t want any part of it.  There is no reason to continue to pursue a dream that is already dead.

2.  A new mark would undoubtedly soar in value, thus making the population wealthier and imports much cheaper.  This would create a substantial stimulus for the EU as a whole.  The remainder of the EU would have a euro with a lower value, and would be able to increase exports and growth and ultimately reduce debt.

3.  Any moral obligation to bail out the overspenders would disappear.

As far as I can tell, the only reason for the Germans to stay in, other than mere inertia, is that it creates a platform for them to impose their values on the rest of the EU.  The potential consequence of that will be discussed in a future post.

Suppose you are Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany.  You look at your country and see serious long-term demographic issues, which will ultimately create financing problems for your welfare state.  Your country’s culture emphasizes thrift, in any event.  Under these circumstances, it makes both economic and political sense to keep public spending and aggregate demand under strict control.

Suppose, instead, you are Angela Merkel, de facto leader of Europe.  You see stagnation and double-digit unemployment in most of the continent.  In places like Spain and Greece, the unemployment rate is over 20 percent, with little hope of substantial improvement on the horizon.  One of the obvious ways of dealing with these problem is to take actions to increase demand in Germany.

Which course do you take?  You are responsible to the voters of Germany, but not Europe.  What do you think?

In the not-so-distant past, France and Germany ran the EU as partners.  No longer, due to robust German growth and French stagnation.  It has gotten to the point where the Germans don’t even pretend to treat the French as equals anymore.  And if President Obama wants to call Europe, he knows which number to use, and it isn’t answered in Paris or Brussels.

I always had trouble understanding exactly how the institutions in the Holy Roman Empire worked in practice, but the evolution of the EU has made it more clear to me.  Substitute Angela Merkel for a Hapsburg emperor and it all starts to make sense.

The dual role of the German Chancellor as the head of state of an individual nation and the de facto leader of Europe is naturally going to create a whole new series of issues for the EU.  This will be discussed in a future post.

 

Republicans offer the electorate nostalgia for a better past, promise to get rid of environmental regulations that they can plausibly (although not very accurately) claim are the source of the area’s economic problems, and visibly embrace rural cultural values.

Democrats offer government benefits that provide little more than subsistence.

Is it any wonder that (a) is winning?