We've already had a half dozen of these things, haven't we? And there are months to go before anyone casts a ballot?
What exactly happens at these debates to change anything? Unless a candidate lays a tremendous turd, it's all political theater. I stopped watching them years ago and I feel like my understanding of American politics did not suffer a whit.
Town halls are nice, but they can be problematic with so many candidates. Still, having candidates talk to actual people and not cable news blowhards is likely to be an improvement.
Since we have a reality show president, I'd love to have something similar. Something like a foreign policy escape room, where a candidate and a half dozen advisors are presented with a crisis that spins out of control - India/Pakistan for instance - and they have to react. Or maybe an economic crisis. That would be great television and might actually demonstrate how people would govern if we gave them the chance. It would also expose mental insufficiencies in ways that memorizing canned applause lines doesn't.
Whatever, we need better electoral coverage than dueling press conferences masquerading as a "debate."
Friday, September 13, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
The US, Israel and World War III
This is a very comprehensive essay by Robert Kagan about the Netanyahu government's embrace of right wing nationalism around the world. Kagan notes that Israel has made close to ties to Putin's Russia, Orban's Hungary, even Bolsanaro's Brazil. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Netanyahu government's embrace of the the Republican Party and evangelical US Christians.
As Kagan implies, this has put Israel on a collision course with the "international liberal order" that is under assault from all sides. Kagan also notes that the US-Israeli alliance has largely been based on shared values rather than US strategic interest. Foreign policy realism would argue for jettisoning any unconditional support for Israel to woo the much more numerous and important Muslim states. He uses the penetrating example of Iran, a country that likely poses no threat to the US, but does to Israel. Our constant animosity towards Iran is largely in service to Israeli security interests and does not make for a stable Persian Gulf.
Eventually, there will be a Democratic president who is more willing to take on Netanyahu. Do we really need to subsidize the Israeli military at the cost of $3B a year in order to subjugate the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza? Do we need to continue to protect Israel in the UN?
More broadly, the next Democratic president is going to have two huge tasks, even if s/he is inaugurated in 2021. First, they will have to restaff and repair the basic functions of government. A lot of the federal bureaucracy is being hollowed out by Republicans. Creating a government that can actually work again will be as important as whatever laws will be passed through a (potential) narrow Senate majority.
Secondly, the next President will have to repair America's standing in the world. Famously, Obama's Trans Pacific Partnership was torpedoed from the Left in the 2016 election from a basic revulsion of free trade. Yet, free trade is one of the pillars of the post-war international liberal order. While free trade is complicated in both domestic and international economics, it does largely work. However, it has very few defenders at the moment. The TPP was designed to protect workers in ways that earlier trade deals didn't, but because it was lumped in with other free trade agreements, it was pilloried. But the TPP was more than a trade deal, it was an attempt to buttress the countries of Pacific basin against a powerful but illiberal China.
This trend towards nationalism and illiberalism has an end point: global war. Nationalism feeds off military conflict. (That Trump has largely resisted this impulse is one of the more curious aspects of his presidency. His firing of John Bolton is an objectively good thing. Trump is a man of simple ideas and impulses and somewhere deep in his tapioca brain he's internalized the idea that war is bad for business.)
As countries retreat into what Kagan and others call "blood and soil nationalism" the potential for wars increase. As we saw in 1914, regional wars can trigger broader conflicts that can engulf the whole world. If militant rightist nationalism isn't thwarted politically, it's logical next step will be the sort of global war we saw last time a pair of powerful countries embraced this toxic idea. While Japan and Germany are not likely to be next source of geopolitical instability, India/Pakistan; Iran/Saudi Arabia or perhaps even Ukraine/Russia could be the spark that ignites World War III. If humanity survives, perhaps then we will relearn the lesson of 1945.
If humanity survives.
As Kagan implies, this has put Israel on a collision course with the "international liberal order" that is under assault from all sides. Kagan also notes that the US-Israeli alliance has largely been based on shared values rather than US strategic interest. Foreign policy realism would argue for jettisoning any unconditional support for Israel to woo the much more numerous and important Muslim states. He uses the penetrating example of Iran, a country that likely poses no threat to the US, but does to Israel. Our constant animosity towards Iran is largely in service to Israeli security interests and does not make for a stable Persian Gulf.
Eventually, there will be a Democratic president who is more willing to take on Netanyahu. Do we really need to subsidize the Israeli military at the cost of $3B a year in order to subjugate the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza? Do we need to continue to protect Israel in the UN?
More broadly, the next Democratic president is going to have two huge tasks, even if s/he is inaugurated in 2021. First, they will have to restaff and repair the basic functions of government. A lot of the federal bureaucracy is being hollowed out by Republicans. Creating a government that can actually work again will be as important as whatever laws will be passed through a (potential) narrow Senate majority.
Secondly, the next President will have to repair America's standing in the world. Famously, Obama's Trans Pacific Partnership was torpedoed from the Left in the 2016 election from a basic revulsion of free trade. Yet, free trade is one of the pillars of the post-war international liberal order. While free trade is complicated in both domestic and international economics, it does largely work. However, it has very few defenders at the moment. The TPP was designed to protect workers in ways that earlier trade deals didn't, but because it was lumped in with other free trade agreements, it was pilloried. But the TPP was more than a trade deal, it was an attempt to buttress the countries of Pacific basin against a powerful but illiberal China.
This trend towards nationalism and illiberalism has an end point: global war. Nationalism feeds off military conflict. (That Trump has largely resisted this impulse is one of the more curious aspects of his presidency. His firing of John Bolton is an objectively good thing. Trump is a man of simple ideas and impulses and somewhere deep in his tapioca brain he's internalized the idea that war is bad for business.)
As countries retreat into what Kagan and others call "blood and soil nationalism" the potential for wars increase. As we saw in 1914, regional wars can trigger broader conflicts that can engulf the whole world. If militant rightist nationalism isn't thwarted politically, it's logical next step will be the sort of global war we saw last time a pair of powerful countries embraced this toxic idea. While Japan and Germany are not likely to be next source of geopolitical instability, India/Pakistan; Iran/Saudi Arabia or perhaps even Ukraine/Russia could be the spark that ignites World War III. If humanity survives, perhaps then we will relearn the lesson of 1945.
If humanity survives.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
The Day That Broke America
It's been 18 years, and we are now seeing a generation come of age with no living memory of a pre-9/11 world. Every year, I make the plea to remember but also to forget. The attacks of 9/11 fundamentally broke parts of our country. They militarized us in ways that we haven't yet fully grasped but threaten to undermine core tenets of America's attitude towards standing armies. They created a fearful polity that has come to hate in ways that we were leaving behind. Sure, the hate was still there, but 9/11 dug it up and dumped it into our living rooms.
History is littered with "what if" moments. Few are bigger than 9/11. It changed our country. Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is scattered. But in the larger picture, they accomplished some of what they wanted.
History is littered with "what if" moments. Few are bigger than 9/11. It changed our country. Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is scattered. But in the larger picture, they accomplished some of what they wanted.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
This Needs To Change
While we don't have a "smoking gun" on this, Wilbur Ross is one of the creepiest, most corrupt members of this administration and it would be completely in character for him.
Again, this goes back to how important 2020 is for the basic functioning of our governmental systems. Modern governance only works if everyone abides by some basic legal norms. Trump and the GOP have absolutely trampled those norms. Finding someone who can repair them and put of sturdier guardrails for the next Trump is vital if America is going to remain America.
Again, this goes back to how important 2020 is for the basic functioning of our governmental systems. Modern governance only works if everyone abides by some basic legal norms. Trump and the GOP have absolutely trampled those norms. Finding someone who can repair them and put of sturdier guardrails for the next Trump is vital if America is going to remain America.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Can We Make It?
Trump's ability to degrade American governance has largely been stymied by institutional inertia. However, he's finding ways to finally erode the resistance of institutions to his demagoguery and corruption. Trump's pathological insistence that Dorian was going to hit Alabama, and then having some flunky at NOAA back him up (only to get further push back from within NOAA) is one example. The increasing self-dealing surrounding Trump's properties is another.
At this point, we should see the gears of impeachment starting to turn. Tis the season...
At this point, we should see the gears of impeachment starting to turn. Tis the season...
Sunday, September 8, 2019
The Point of History
This is a fascinating glimpse into the fragility of white people in the face of historical accuracy. A few years back, I went to the new Visitor's Center at Gettysburg (I had been to the old one), and I was heartened to see that they had centered slavery in their explanation of the Civil War. Nevertheless, I'm sure (white) people wanted to keep "politics" out of their Civil War fetish. Don't talk about slavery...at a Civil War museum...
If you are going to understand America's development, you have to center slavery. Why was Jefferson able to sit back and read political theory and do scientific work? Because he had hundreds of people working for him who he owned. Jefferson is a man of tremendous contradictions. No bigger contradiction is his commitment to human liberty while owning slaves. To ignore this is to ignore a real understanding of history.
But for some people, they don't want history, they want myths. They want to be made to feel good.
That's a willing embrace of ignorance to bring comfort. I can't think of a better illustration of a certain segment of white America.
If you are going to understand America's development, you have to center slavery. Why was Jefferson able to sit back and read political theory and do scientific work? Because he had hundreds of people working for him who he owned. Jefferson is a man of tremendous contradictions. No bigger contradiction is his commitment to human liberty while owning slaves. To ignore this is to ignore a real understanding of history.
But for some people, they don't want history, they want myths. They want to be made to feel good.
That's a willing embrace of ignorance to bring comfort. I can't think of a better illustration of a certain segment of white America.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Friday, September 6, 2019
Crenshaw
There was a mildly nice moment when SNL made fun of Rep. Dan Crenshaw and then had a nice moment when they invited him on. Very...civil.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
More Of This
I don't watch debates, because they are ridiculous theater. I didn't watch the climate change town hall, but it strikes me that they are much more substantive and allow candidates a better chance to explain what policies they will pursue as opposed to how they can get in zingers. American politics could use more of that.
Fixing Democracy
EJ Dionne makes some good points. Every democratic government puts some restraints on popular will. As Brexit has shown, majorities - especially thin ones on complicated issues - are not always correct. Yet too many restraints - as exists in the US Senate - destroy government, too.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
State Of The Field
Josh Marshall does a nice job explaining what he calls "Biden Realism." (sub.req.) Basically, the race - despite all the minor candidates jumping in and out - has been remarkably steady. If the election were held today, Joe Biden would become the next president. As Marshall points out, Biden has a steady and consistent lead in the polls. Running against Trump may or may not mitigate his gaffe-prone style, but his basic decency would seem to suggest he's pulling in voters from the suburbs - marginal Democrats - in ways that others aren't. He's also doing very well among African American voters, which is ironic given Harris and Booker's place in the field. Warren is surging, whereas Sanders seems stuck at 15%.
The biggest takeaway from the recent polling is that Trump is mired at 38-40%. No reputable polls have him beating that ceiling.
The biggest takeaway from the recent polling is that Trump is mired at 38-40%. No reputable polls have him beating that ceiling.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
No Clue
The British Parliamentary system is a masterpiece of norms and traditions. Britain's "constitution" isn't a binding fundamental law like the US Constitution, so there is no such thing as judicial review. Anything Parliament does is de facto constitutional, though there are some decently strong guardrails that usually deal with unusual power plays or violations of the spirit of the system. Sure, there are some documents like the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689 and some others that are the "constitution" but that is all about tradition. If Parliament wanted to abolish the monarchy, they could do it with a simple majority vote. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister because they command a majority in the House of Commons, usually making it a much more efficient system than America's system of checks and balances.
All of this is to say that what is happening now is unprecedented. The Commons is in chaos because Boris Johnson - Britain's Trump - is currently Prime Minister without a working majority. When this happens, there is usually an election, but no one knows exactly what an election will bring about so no one is too eager to have one.
The crux of the matter is that David Cameron tried to be too clever by half and called a referendum on Britain's continued membership in the EU. Everyone expected it to fail the way the Scottish independence referendum failed. It didn't, passing narrowly, and touching off a series of crises in British politics with no apparent end in sight. Johnson apparently negotiates like Trump, basically taking the country hostage and threatening to "prorogue" Parliament, or basically stop it from meeting but not dissolving it and having elections. When Parliament returned from its proroguing, it would not have enough time to respond to whatever sort of Brexit Johnson negotiated. Basically, it's a gun to the head of the Parliament, the British and European economies and the idea of Parliamentary supremacy.
Johnson has said repeatedly he's OK with a "no-deal" Brexit. That means there will suddenly be a customs logjam at British ports and a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Frankly, if a no-deal Brexit is as bad as people think it will be, I could the Scottish Parliament unilaterally declaring itself independent from that no-deal chaos. It's just THAT messy.
Johnson clearly thinks he can hammer through a no-deal Brexit and then negotiate whatever it is that he wants while the European economy crumbles. The problem is that the population was repeatedly told that there would not be a no-deal Brexit.
They were conned, and many of them are beginning to realize this. Still, a second referendum would soundly defeat no-deal Brexit, but likely also defeat remaining in the EU. We just don't know.
Calling elections might help, except Britain has a weird two-and-a-half party system. The Lib Dems were almost extinct as a party, but pro-EU Conservatives are bolting for LD. Meanwhile, Labour has no idea what it wants as an end result. So, it's plausible that a new election would give Johnson an outright majority with only 30% of the popular vote. Almost all ruling parties get less than 50% of the vote, which usually doesn't matter, because - again - Britain has such strong rules and norms that most radical ideas are dismissed out of hand. What Johnson is doing is profoundly radical.
So, there we are.
No clue.
All of this is to say that what is happening now is unprecedented. The Commons is in chaos because Boris Johnson - Britain's Trump - is currently Prime Minister without a working majority. When this happens, there is usually an election, but no one knows exactly what an election will bring about so no one is too eager to have one.
The crux of the matter is that David Cameron tried to be too clever by half and called a referendum on Britain's continued membership in the EU. Everyone expected it to fail the way the Scottish independence referendum failed. It didn't, passing narrowly, and touching off a series of crises in British politics with no apparent end in sight. Johnson apparently negotiates like Trump, basically taking the country hostage and threatening to "prorogue" Parliament, or basically stop it from meeting but not dissolving it and having elections. When Parliament returned from its proroguing, it would not have enough time to respond to whatever sort of Brexit Johnson negotiated. Basically, it's a gun to the head of the Parliament, the British and European economies and the idea of Parliamentary supremacy.
Johnson has said repeatedly he's OK with a "no-deal" Brexit. That means there will suddenly be a customs logjam at British ports and a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Frankly, if a no-deal Brexit is as bad as people think it will be, I could the Scottish Parliament unilaterally declaring itself independent from that no-deal chaos. It's just THAT messy.
Johnson clearly thinks he can hammer through a no-deal Brexit and then negotiate whatever it is that he wants while the European economy crumbles. The problem is that the population was repeatedly told that there would not be a no-deal Brexit.
They were conned, and many of them are beginning to realize this. Still, a second referendum would soundly defeat no-deal Brexit, but likely also defeat remaining in the EU. We just don't know.
Calling elections might help, except Britain has a weird two-and-a-half party system. The Lib Dems were almost extinct as a party, but pro-EU Conservatives are bolting for LD. Meanwhile, Labour has no idea what it wants as an end result. So, it's plausible that a new election would give Johnson an outright majority with only 30% of the popular vote. Almost all ruling parties get less than 50% of the vote, which usually doesn't matter, because - again - Britain has such strong rules and norms that most radical ideas are dismissed out of hand. What Johnson is doing is profoundly radical.
So, there we are.
No clue.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Elephant In The Room
Trump is senile. I mean, he was never really bright to begin with, and the collapse of his meager cognitive skills means that the effects are noticeable. Frankly, we see some of the same in Joe Biden.
We need mandatory retirement ages for important public servants.
We need mandatory retirement ages for important public servants.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
And Another
I got on a plane from Atlanta to Hartford, and when I got off the plane, there was another mass shooting. It has led to two interesting responses.
One is Beto O'Rourke saying "this is fucked up" and that we need to ban and buy back assault weapons.
Then you have this response which boggles my mind. You read through the comments below the original tweet and you realize how broken some of the gun humpers are. Most gun owners believe in a great deal more gun safety measures: licensing, background checks maybe even some liability. And then you have this Cult of Death that basically prioritizes their property rights over human life.
One is Beto O'Rourke saying "this is fucked up" and that we need to ban and buy back assault weapons.
Then you have this response which boggles my mind. You read through the comments below the original tweet and you realize how broken some of the gun humpers are. Most gun owners believe in a great deal more gun safety measures: licensing, background checks maybe even some liability. And then you have this Cult of Death that basically prioritizes their property rights over human life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)