Showing posts with label Republican Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Candidates. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Tucker Carlson & Martha's Vineyard

iew YouTube video Tucker Carlson: Is an



Tucker Carlson is having a field day (actually, at least two of them) talking about Martha's Vineyard. This video is 21 minutes long, but I recommend watching it. He makes the Trumpian point very clearly, though please remember that he's an entertainer first (a very good one) and a political pundit only second. He points out the stunning hypocrisy of the Vineyarders (who sport signs saying "hate has no business here") as they arranged for the military to escort all 50 brown faces off their precious island within 24 hours. One resident said it was "like taking out the trash" (though he apparently intended his remarks to be attributed to DeSantis, but that was not clear from his context. The tweet was removed).

In a previous video Tucker suggests the Vineyarders should be joyful that 50 Venezuelans were sent to join them. After all, the island is 89% white, and since "diversity is our strength," welcoming 50 diverse Venezuelans should be a cause for celebration. But no joy--diversity was gone by military escort the following day.

So Mr. DeSantis has learned trolling from the master himself. And it's worked like a charm. It wiped Trump completely off the front pages for at least two days--important since the Dems want the election to be all about Trump. It makes the Dems left look ridiculous and hypocritical, reduced to phony accusations like "kidnapping" and "human trafficking, and asserting that everybody else is racist except for the enlightened denizens of Martha's Vineyard. Apparently Mr. DeSantis' trick forced the Biden administration to actually admit to a high-level meeting about immigration. Until now they've publicly ignored the issue. 

Though I've read enough commentary to realize that the Dem counterargument isn't entirely off-base, though it's clear Republicans won the news cycle by a country mile. The best Dem talking point was that the islanders' reception was not as hostile as Tucker will have you believe. (His "Froot Loops" segment is by far the weakest part of the video.) There were islanders who worked hard to make sure the Venezuelans got fed, showered, clothed and put up for the night. Yet it's odd that they couldn't persuade even 5 or 6 of them to stay on the island. Surely, with the nationwide labor shortage, there'd be more than enough work for them to do. And with the off-season island now full of empty hotel rooms, the purported lack of housing doesn't ring true either.

It was noted (I read this somewhere) that while the seasonal residents are the privileged, ultra-wealthy Obama-types, the year-round residents of the island are not like that at all. Instead, they're the servant class: the housemaids, groundskeepers, cops, chauffeurs, local officials, etc. Thus they responded as do similar workers in red states, i.e., with hostility to a large group of people who are coming to compete with them for jobs. (Not sure I believe that, though it could be part of the story.) As Tucker points out, red-staters in such circumstances are accused of being deplorable, bitter clinging racists. Obviously the Dems can't charge their own servants with such crimes--and hence the embarrassment. 

But both Tucker and the Dems miss the elephant in the room. They both conflate the Venezuelans with our American homeless population. And perhaps that's understandable, for they are, at least for the moment, homeless. They sleep on sidewalks, they haven't showered in weeks, they walked through the Darien Gap jungle, etc. The only thing missing are the hypodermic needles sticking out of their arms.

But the refugees are as different from our mentally-ill, addicted homeless people as night is from day. For the Venezuelans were, until a few years ago, solidly members of the middle class. Recall that their country used to be the richest in South America, until Hugo Chavez (enthusiastically cheered on by Progressives everywhere) put Venezuela on a path toward economic suicide. So these poor people have now spent the very last of their assets to come to the United States.

But, lack of money notwithstanding, these aren't really poor people. They're people with substance and middle class attitudes. They will do very well in America--like the Cubans before them.

  • In three months they'll have a job and a place to live.
  • In two years they'll speak English and own a car.
  • In five years they'll have professional jobs and some of them will be buying houses.
  • In fifteen years many of them will be citizens and they will vote.

None of these people will ever vote for anything that even remotely smells like socialism! That's why I call them the Future Republicans of America. Tucker sells them short--he thinks they're gonna be indigent indefinitely (as is likely true of many Salvadorans). He's afraid that they'll never assimilate into American culture and will change the country for the worse. He is just wrong!

The Dems are also wrong--though maybe deep down they realize what's happening. Inviting a whole bunch of incipient Republicans to NYC and DC (not to mention Martha's Vineyard) puts Democratic urban machine politics at risk. That's perhaps why they actually hate the immigrants so much that they have to get rid of them as fast as possible.

Tucker is wrong in another way as well. He shows a clip of Joe Biden saying that a country of 330 million can afford to bring in another two million immigrants. For once I'll side with Joe--he's right. Not only can we do it--we have to do it. American total fertility rates since the pandemic have dropped to about 1.7--well below replacement rate. We're not having enough babies. If red-staters really are worried about being "replaced," then part of the problem begins at home, specifically in the bedroom.

So we need a lot of new immigrants--but they shouldn't have to come this way. Why should a family have to traipse through the Darien Gap, and pay their very last coin to the Mexican Drug cartels in order to come the USA? There is absolutely no reason for that. We need the immigrants, and they want to come. We have to find a way to allow for legal immigration. There is more support for that than our media (left and right) are willing to admit.

But there are some conditions. The wall is a prerequisite. Before we can accept any large number of legal immigrants, we have to stop the illegal sort. We have to get control over our southern border. Second, we can't just accept low wage immigrants--that's unfair to our domestic workers. For every Honduran and Salvadoran, we need to also accept somebody with genuine skills, like nurses (e.g., more Filipinos). 

Biden, by irresponsibly and incompetently stopping the wall, has set back the cause for a higher rate of legal immigration by at least a decade. This, along with the disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan, will mark his administration with shame.

Further Reading:

Thursday, May 6, 2021

Elise Stefanik

Elise Stefanik is one of New York's own, and as such I'm partial to her. She represents my adopted state.

She grew up in suburban Albany, where her parents run a lumber supply business. She graduated from Harvard College, i.e., she's among the smartest people on the planet. Following graduation she went to work in the Bush White House doing foreign policy stuff. After Obama's election, she returned to Albany to help run her parents' business. When in 2014 Democrat Bill Owens decided not to run for re-election for Congress from New York's 21st district, she bought a house in Willsboro (Essex County) and ran for the seat. She won, and has won every re-election since by convincing margins. She was the youngest congressman (30) when first elected. She since got married and lives in Schuylerville (Saratoga County).

She's now running for House Republican Conference Chair to succeed the politically tarnished Liz Cheney. Her credentials are political backslapping, prodigious fund raising (I think she's among the dollar leaders), and, unlike Liz, her vocal and unwavering support for Trump during both his impeachment hearings. That has earned her strong support from DJT, and also from Steve Scalise, the House minority whip. Kevin McCarthy doesn't seem to like her very much, though he's decided not to oppose her.

But a lot of people (incl. the Club for Growth) have come out against, calling her too liberal. They do have a point:
  • She is a squish on abortion. While she consistently opposes any taxpayer funding for the procedure, she's against making it illegal.
  • She opposed Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accords. She's trying to stake out middle ground in climate issues.
  • She opposed Trump's troop withdrawal from Syria, and I assume she opposes our pending withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  • Like the entire NY delegation, she opposed removing the SALT deduction.
  • She opposed reallocating DoD funds to pay for the border wall (though I don't think this was because of opposition to the wall).
  • She supported the LGBTQ rights bill.
In other words, say her detractors, she's no better than Liz Cheney.

Despite her support for the president, she clearly is not a Trump Republican. She isn't even a Reagan Republican. I think one has to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find a good analogue.

Calvin was born in Plymouth Center, Vermont, barely 75 miles from where Elise now lives. He attended college at Amherst in Northampton, MA. In those days Amherst was a legit good school for men, cultivating the rock-ribbed, Republican attitudes for which New Englanders were famous. Following college he apprenticed himself to a law firm (he was the last lawyer president not to have attended law school), and then lived in Northampton for the rest of his life, except for the time that he spent in the Governor's mansion in Boston or in the White House in DC. I'm informed by the excellent biography by Amity Shlaes.

Cal ran as vice-president under Warren Harding. The latter was a gregarious, happy, intelligent man whose campaign slogan was "Back to Normal." By that he meant undoing the near dictatorship of Woodrow Wilson, inspired by WWI. Wilson was as close to a fascist president as America has ever had, and surrounded himself by a coterie of like-minded people, e.g., Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh. He curtailed both civil liberties and economic freedoms, and Harding's campaign promised to undo all of that. Harding won easily.

Unfortunately, Harding had one great flaw: he couldn't say NO. The result was people walked all over him and his administration became grossly corrupt, topped off by the Teapot Dome scandal. I think Harding would eventually have been impeached, but fortunately for the country he died first, and in 1923 the vastly more competent Silent Cal took over. Coolidge stuck to the same principles--shrinking government, counting every penny in the government fisc, and undoing all the civil liberties restrictions. The result was the roaring economy for which the '20s are famous.

So what is this Rock-Ribbed Republicanism so ably represented by Coolidge?
  • Pragmatism. Rock-Ribbed Republicans do not go for Grand Eternal Schemes. Just solve today's problems as they come along.
  • Moderation. No radical proposals. Put together viable coalitions.
  • Thrift, bordering on asceticism, in both government and personal budgets.
  • "City on a Hill." The USA is an exceptional country and therefore has exceptional responsibilities. We can't just abandon the rest of the world. We must live up to our high standards.
  • High moral principles. For Coolidge that meant personal virtues; for modern politicians it's more likely to mean social justice virtues, such as LBGTQ rights,
Obviously, Elise isn't the same as Calvin Coolidge--we live in different times, and she's a different person, not least female. But if history doesn't repeat, it's easy to see the rhyme. She holds pragmatic, moderate positions--ones likely to piss off the extremes, such as Club for Growth. I'll bet she's a believer in balanced budgets--were she in charge we'd have no $2 trillion spending bills. She lives modestly, and there's no hint of corruption in her background.

Elise obviously has political ambitions beyond Congress. She aspires to statewide and/or national offices, and rumor has it she's considering a run for governor in 2022. I don't think the presidency is off her radar screen--she certainly has the smarts to pull it off. Let's consider her options.
  • Her biggest hurdle for statewide office is not that she's a Republican, but rather that she is from Upstate. Her district is in the far northern reaches of New York, surrounding the Adirondack Park. Its population is nearly 60% rural. Her constituents are as far removed from the problems of New York City as it is possible to be. Needless to say, all postwar governors have built their political careers Downstate, in or near the City. The northernmost recent governor--George Pataki--hailed from Peekskill, in Westchester County. Beating a Downstate Democrat for statewide office will be a stretch, no matter how smart she is.
  • On the other hand, her gender and pragmatic moderation make her the suburban woman's ideal candidate. Upstate notwithstanding, she's gonna poll well on Long Island and in Westchester County. Will that be enough to put her over the top? It will take a miracle, but it could happen.
  • On the third hand, by his very brashness Trump was able to appeal to Black and (esp.) Hispanic voters. Elise's district, by contrast, is 90% white, and only 3% African-American. New England and Upstate New York is a part of the country uniquely inhospitable to Black folks. Cal never had to worry about that--but Elise does. Most New England politicians have the same problem, e.g., Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
I think the Republican Party needs to be a bigger tent than narrow Trumpism, and a champion for Rock-Ribbed Republicanism is a good thing. My biggest beef with her is the climate change shtick, which I think is mostly fake news. But I trust her enough to believe she's not gonna do anything really stupid, like ban airplanes or prohibit fracking. I admire her for standing up for Trump during the impeachment witch hunts--Coolidge-style loyalty counts for something.

To win a nationwide contest she'll have to expand her coalition beyond New York/New England. That's a big hurdle--Yankees aren't popular in much of the country. Just ask Liz Warren or Bernie about that.

So even though I'm more in the Trump camp, I still support her bid for Conference Chair. I will happily vote for her against any Democrat, though I won't promise to support her in a primary. You Go, Girl!

Further Reading:

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Book Review: Donald J. Trump

The full title of this biography by Conrad Black is Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other. Mr. Black--Canadian-born, one-time newspaper mogul and a former US prison inmate recently pardoned by President Trump--is a spectacularly talented writer, despite his discursive, complex, literate style. Among my friends I call him "my favorite Canadian," and I read his columns religiously.

Obviously this isn't the definitive biography of Trump--the man is still in mid career. We'll have to wait a decade or two before that comes out. Equally clear, it isn't a hit piece--Mr. Black is upfront about his pro-Trump sympathies. 

Nor is it a hagiography, perhaps best described by Edmund Morris (Theodore Roosevelt's biographer) who says you can't fall in love with your subject. Mr. Black avoids (maybe just barely) falling in love, and is sufficiently honest and clear-eyed to find fault.

What you will find here is first-class journalism. It's a background piece on today's top story, and apart from it's length it could appear in any newspaper or magazine.

Trump comes by his hucksterism honestly. His grandfather, Friedrich Drumpf, arrived in the US in 1885 at age 16. Mr. Black surmises that he took the name Fred Trump at the port of entry. He first traveled west to Seattle, and then on to the Canadian Yukon, where he "operated restaurants, bars, and hotels, catering to prospectors." But "most accounts allege that he was in fact operating whorehouses and clip joints, sometimes with no lease or title to the land." Eventually he settled in the Bronx, marrying his childhood sweetheart from Germany.

Donald Trump was an ingenious businessman, but borrowing to the limit, played very close to the edge. When the economy tanked in the early 1990s, bankruptcy seemed inevitable. He took full advantage that neither banks nor bondholders wanted that outcome. The lenders didn't know how to run a casino, nor did they have the celebrity to promote it. Both knew that only he could maintain the value of the property. Trump leveraged this to the max, renegotiating the loans at very favorable terms, saving his personal fortune.

I previously believed that Trump became a politician by accident--that the campaign was initially a PR stunt designed to promote his business. Indeed, Trump obviously didn't think he was going to win--not even at the last minute. But Mr. Black makes a convincing case that Trump planned a presidential campaign far in advance of the event. He was long interested in politics, especially as his business turned from buildings/casinos into licensing his own name as a brand. Trump's long shot bet on a campaign is risk-taking typical of the man, and does not indicate lack of seriousness.

Trump's political tactics revolve around two principles. The first is never back down or apologize. He broke this rule at least once: following the release of the Billy Bush tapes, where Trump said he "can get away with women, including grabbing them 'by the pussy.'" This was made public a few days before the second debate with Hillary Clinton. Trump's first response was to apologize, saying "Anyone who knows me knows these words do not reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize." It made him sound like any two-bit political loser.

But then he fought back: he held a press conference with three women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, and a fourth woman--a victim of an actual rape--whose assailant had Hillary Clinton as a lawyer and was acquitted on a technicality. Oddly not mentioned by Mr. Black, Trump invited these ladies to sit in the front row during the debate.

Far from backing down, Trump "flipped the script", accusing Mrs. Clinton of precisely what she had accused him of. It worked. I read recently that the Trump campaign thinks this maneuver saved the election for them.

The second tactic is truthful hyperbole, including obvious exaggerations, such as requiring press secretary Sean Spicer to say that his inauguration was "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, both in person and around the globe." That one probably didn't help him any. But Mr. Black also writes that
Trump, the grand impresario, had entered "an environment that was ripe for bombastic, inflammatory outrageous statements without having to suffer the consequences," where extreme partisanship, public cynicism, general disregard for traditional expertise, and accumulated public anger did not discourage his natural tendencies toward hyperbole and did not really punish lapses into fabrication.
Mr. Black, writing a biography, sticks close to Trump's own truthful hyperbole formulation. But I will go further and claim that Trump is a teller of tall tales.

A tall tale differs from a lie in that nobody is expected to believe the tale. Indeed, Trump is a master story teller--that's how he can keep an audience spellbound for over an hour. Stories must have a plot, and that requires exaggeration and simplification. The "alternative facts" have to fit the story--not reality.

The most famous tall tale (which Mr. Black doesn't mention) is the tag phrase "...and Mexico will pay for it." Nobody ever believed it--it was just an applause line--and that's why he suffers no political damage upon not being able to deliver. His critics--who invariably accuse him of "lying"--miss the point completely and make themselves look like fools in the process.

As Salena Zito famously wrote, "the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

Trump is neither an intellectual nor an analytical thinker. He traffics in metaphors and parables. He doesn't have a "program" in the way Hillary or Elizabeth Warren do. His slogans are all evocative, emotional, and vague--easily misunderstood.

For example Nancy Pelosi thinks his slogan Make America Great Again, really means Make America White Again. I find that completely implausible, but I'd be hard pressed to find a specific quote where Mr. Trump explicitly denies it.

Likewise, I think Trump is pro-immigration, but he insists that it be legal. We should admit people "who love us." But others (both critics and supporters) interpret his rhetoric as trying to shut the door, or that we should only admit white people. I think they're wrong, and my post Good Trump, Bad Trump makes that case.

The amorphous nature of Trump's appeal makes him hard to pin him down. Some people think he's a "racist"; others, like me, think he's rebelling against political correctness. Some people think he's ignorant about "climate change." Others, like me, believe he's not gonna throw good money after a non-existent problem.

Those three issues (or at least my interpretation of them)--immigration, political correctness, and "climate change"--are what inspire my support for the man. Plus he's such a great storyteller.

Let me give Mr. Black the last word, who compares Mr. Trump to his predecessors.
In international relations, Richard Nixon was a chess player and Ronald Reagan a poker player, and both were very successful. Trump seems more of a pool shark, but it seems likely he will do well too.
"Pool shark" is a good word in many contexts--not just in international relations. It's part of Donald J. Trump's genius, as beautifully described by Conrad Black.

Further Reading:

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Trump Calls Out the Squad

So Trump just told the Sqaud (AOC, Omar, Pressley, Tlaib) that if they don't like the USA they should go back to their own, miserable, misbegotten countries.

Some thoughts:

1) The comment is over the top. Only Omar was born abroad, in Somalia. For some reason Somalis have come here expressly to become an aggrieved minority. So in her case, the request to go home and fix Somalia first before she tries to fix us may not be too far fetched. The rest were born in the US. AOC is of Puerto Rican ancestry, in which case she's an American back many generations.

2) The comment is not racist. It is a criticism of four individuals. It may be stupid, over the top, uncivil, etc., but it does not apply to any large group of citizens on the basis of race. There's nothing there that even remotely implies that all Blacks should go back to Africa, or some such.

3) It's a Godsend to the Squad. AOC must be overjoyed--it puts her squarely in the national spotlight. Their professed indignation is purely for show.

4) It won't hurt Trump at all. In a recent poll I read that AOC has a national approval rating of 13%--far below Trump's 46%. I have no data on Omar (who really is a racist), but I doubt she'd clear the single digits. The Squad is wildly unpopular, and widely perceived as representing what's wrong with America.

5) The real target of the attack is Nancy Pelosi, who is now between a rock and a hard place. She has been trying to diminish and isolate the Squad as nothing more than four votes in Congress. In return they've tarred her as racist (which she doesn't deserve any more than Trump). But now she's forced to stick up for them, and further, after a call-out from the President they're no longer just four irrelevant votes. Then Trump is claiming to support Pelosi--which is as embarrassing as it will be hard to disown.

6) Pelosi's predicament will make it much harder to keep control of the House in 2020. Swing-seat voters hate the Squad--and if Pelosi goes all squaddy they won't vote for Dems.

7) The 20 little dwarfs (Dem candidates) are similarly challenged--they either go all-in, Squad-crazy, or they end up siding with Trump. Liz has already picked the Squad--which will likely doom her presidential campaign. (Unless she can somehow credibly disown them later.) 

So as silly and over-the-top as it sounds, Trumps tweets are a stroke of political genius. Now all he has to do is watch the shit fly as the Dems tear each other apart.

Further Reading:

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

"Perspectives for the United States"

It's been a quiet month in Trotsky-land. I've found rather little to write about. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here, not because John Reimann's article is bad, but just that I've covered this territory many times before.

I've borrowed my post's title from Mr. Reimann's piece over at The North Star. The lede paragraph:
The Marxist method is to start by trying to figure out the main processes – the main forces at work – and get some idea of how they will interact and develop. Only then can we figure out our tasks within that general process. Recently a small group of Marxists – the Workers International Network – held a conference in Britain. Here are some thought on the perspectives for the United States that were submitted to that conference:
It's a fine thought, but then why is the following sentence so spectacularly wrong?
On November 9, 2016, the world awoke to Americans having elected the most right wing and racist president since before the US Civil War.
Surely Presidents Reagan and both Bushes were more "right wing" than Trump, at least if judged against standard Republican principles. They all explicitly tried to shrink the size of government (unsuccessfully), and were eager to use US military force abroad (Grenada, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Iraq). Trump, meanwhile, just signed the biggest deficit-spending bill in history, and apart from two pinprick strikes against Syria has barely used American military force at all.

The "racism" charge is also mostly phony. As Scott Alexander puts it, Trump is no more racist than the average 70-year-old white guy. So that's more "racist" than Obama, but it hardly qualifies him as a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Unlike previous Republican candidates, he actively campaigned in Black neighborhoods and sought out their votes. And while unsuccessful at the time, Trump is slowly winning support from Black men (see, e.g., Kanye West).

What is true is that Trump is spectacularly uninterested in racial politics or issues, about which he knows nothing and cares less. That's why he has such a tin ear on things like Charlottesville, where the media were able to take his remarks completely out of context. (See my comments on that episode here.)

Then we're told that Trump is in cahoots with the Russian mafia. Mr. Reimann's source for this is something called oaklandsocialist.com, which refers us to the equally obscure site WhoWhatWhy.org. These tout conspiracy theories--that Trump has surreptitious ties with Russian oligarchs that not Robert Mueller, nor the otherwise bloodthirsty media has been able to reproducibly uncover. This is just BS.

Finally we get to real substance: Mr. Reimann asserts that American imperialism is in decline. He separates this into two parts: domestic and foreign. He asserts that Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again, is in fact a promise to reverse this decline--a promise he won't be able to keep.

Mr. Reimann does have a point. As a fraction of global output US GDP has declined: from 37% in 1967 to 25% today. This happened (in major part) because China (a very big country) rejoined the world economy in 1980 and global GDP has expanded considerably as a result. But it is a big mistake to interpret this as the decline of America (though in Mr. Reimann's defense, Trump makes the same error). The US has hugely benefited from the industrialization of China, as I have documented in detail here (in response to an article by Marxist Lynn Henderson).

It is an undeniable fact that almost all Americans at all income levels are far richer than they were in 1980. Today we have the Internet, cell phones, 500 channels on cheap, 72" televisions, access to streaming movies, real-time video games, much safer, more reliable, and better cars, cheaper food and much cheaper clothing. Etc. I find it completely incredible that my Trotskyist friends can still claim that we're all getting poorer with a straight face. That is manifestly not true!

Yes, some things have gone awry: Mr. Reimann cites lower home ownership rates. Even there he's cherry-picked his data point, for the quality of housing has increased dramatically over that past 40 years. Even renters are substantially better off than they used to be.

Speaking of cherry-picking, Mr. Reimann cites At Our Own Peril, a report published by the US Army War College, as if it represented the last word in Pentagon thinking. Rest assured--it does not. DoD is a huge organization and publishes a zillion reports annually. Some of them are certifiably stupid, like the one that suggested that climate change is the most important defense priority for the United States.

At Our Own Peril is not silly, but to take it as the last word on global politics is silly. Yes, in many ways US influence has declined since 1945, most precipitously since the demise of the Soviet Union. A multipolar world is intrinsically more complex than a bipolar one. And ever cheaper technology makes weapons of mass destruction more easily obtainable, even by non-state actors. So in that sense Mr. Reimann is correct.

But the US spends 37% of all global defense expenditures, roughly triple what China spends. We are by far the most powerful nation on the planet, a fact that is not likely to change any time soon. It's not even close. When President Trump promises "fire & fury," he is very much in a position to deliver just that.

In an all-out war with North Korea, we win. Easily and hands down. But Mr. Reimann distorts that prospect. He writes
There is the matter of North Korea, for example. Right now, the rhetoric as far as crushing that country seems to have receded. But who knows what’s going on beneath the surface? There have been some reports that some generals are implying they would disobey an order to launch a first strike nuclear attack. But relying on the military, which has always had its crazed Dr. Strangelove wing, is a very weak assurance indeed.
Why would the US launch a first strike nuclear attack? We have no need--we can destroy the Nork's nukes with perfectly conventional weapons. Which (I hope) is what we will do if Mr. Kim cannot be persuaded to give them up otherwise.

Mr. Reimann devotes much of his article to the political responses to Mr. Trump. Given his assumption that Trump is some right-wing, Russia-loving, kooky crackpot, no wonder he gets it all wrong. I remind him that Trump won the 2016 election, and he didn't do that by being a bumbling, incompetent, undisciplined idiot. Quite the contrary--the campaign was spectacularly well run. See, for example, here and here (unfortunately I can't now find the best article on this subject).

The truth is Trump is a masterful politician! He has upended politics in precisely the same way Amazon disrupted bookstores, and Uber has trashed taxicabs. The man is not only disciplined--he's a genius! That doesn't mean he's always right on the issues, but he understands the political pulse in America as no other.

Mr. Reimann, writing back in January, claims Trump only had 32% support. Today it's up to about 50%. But none of those numbers matter. Trump may very well be the most unpopular politician in America--except for all the others. I can't think of a single Democrat who has a chance of beating him.

A lot can change between now and 2020. If nothing else, Trump is getting on in years and his health might fail. Still, Trump is far and away the odds on favorite to win reelection in 2020.

Further Reading:



Sunday, December 25, 2016

Trotskyist Psephology

Psephology -- the study of election returns -- is not in the Trotskyist wheelhouse. For them, apart from the one-and-done variety that elect people like Castro to 50-year terms, elections are "bourgeois," and unimportant. Not worth discussing.

Except this year. Trump's election has upset the apple cart. The standard Leftist line is that a plurality of American voters, especially including the working class slice, are racist/sexist/homophobic/fascist. Of course that's a depressing conclusion, which the grouplets I follow are now trying to walk away from.

Socialist Action (SA) has made the most dramatic retreat. A current article by Mark Ugolini, argues that instead of being racist, etc., workers are just plain stupid. They've been completely bamboozled by Trump's claims to help the working class. Instead he's just a craven capitalist out to stuff the pockets of his own class, determined to betray his supporters by demolishing Obamacare, gutting Medicaid, eliminating pensions, and in general being an all around bastard.

And what of Trump's supposed racism, etc.? Today that gets downplayed. Mr. Ugolini writes:
Despite the virulent expressions of racism and sexism displayed by Trump during the campaign—which gave a swift boost to the ultra-right fringe—and the steady stream of insults, rants, and repulsive behavior, millions responded to his populist-sounding message. These voters viewed Trump as an agent of change—someone capable of shaking things up, who in a distorted way embodied their distrust and hatred of a political system and a news media that ridicules, belittles, and ignores them.
Racism and sexism are today just a sideshow. Trump won "despite" that.

How different that is from what Jeff Mackler wrote back in October, 2015.
No doubt Trump’s rants find fertile soil in a small layer of the overall electorate, but even less in the general population, some half of which increasingly does not bother to vote. 
But Trump’s backwater histrionics are not new to the increasingly polarized and crisis-ridden world capitalist scene. Overtly far-right, if not neo-fascist, views are similarly expressed in France, England, and across Europe. In the former two nations such right-wing parties have, for the first time in nearly a century, outpolled the traditional capitalist stalwart parties of the status quo. 
Trump is the American reflection of overtly racist and neo-fascist ideology— if not a conscious experiment with it. His racist rants in some instances have encouraged the use of violent physical attacks by his disaffected followers, who find his scapegoating of the oppressed to their liking.
Mr. Trump hasn't changed--he wasn't a fascist then and he isn't a fascist now. As Scott Alexander eloquently points out, he's no more racist than the average 70-year-old white guy. He's certainly no more racist than any former president (barring perhaps Mr. Obama).

The American people haven't changed, either. They're no more stupid today than they were ten years ago. By SA's lights they must be true idiots, falling for the same scam every four years as predictably as the sunrise.

Solidarity, having made a French Turn into the Green Party, were fully invested in the Jill Stein campaign. In a statement from the Steering Committee of Solidarity they acknowledge that she was not successful.
Meanwhile, the Green Party--the most visible alternative to the left of the Democrats--seems to have won less than 1% of the vote in the Presidential race; a result both disappointing to those seeking to build the Greens as a party of the left, many of whom named 5% of the vote as a goal, and totally insignificant compared to the numbers of Democrats and independents who either stayed home or, worse, jumped ship to vote for Trump.
While they're still quick to accuse Mr. Trump himself of racism, they try hard to get his supporters off the hook.
The outcome of the election is, no doubt, in part an expression of white supremacy. But it’s more than that: many commenters have already pointed out that the rustbelt battleground states that arguably cost Clinton the election were areas where Obama performed significantly better among white voters in 2008 and 2012 than Clinton did in 2016, complicating any suggestion that the results are simply about the racism of white voters.
This is essentially the same argument as SA makes--the American People were bamboozled into voting against their own self-interest. They're only slightly more specific about why, blaming "neoliberalism"--a catch-all term that is approximately a synonym for all evil.

Scott Alexander provides convincing evidence that white supremacy is not a significant current in American politics. After presenting much data, he concludes
So the mainstream narrative [including Solidarity--ed] is that Trump is okay with alienating minorities (= 118 million people), whites who abhor racism and would never vote for a racist (if even 20% of whites, = 40 million people), most of the media, most business, and most foreign countries – in order to win the support of about 50,000 poorly organized and generally dysfunctional people [white supremacists--ed], many of whom are too young to vote anyway.
As it turns out, Mr. Trump received a larger fraction of the minority vote (both Hispanic & African-American) than either Romney or McCain. Whatever else Trump is, he is not a white supremacist.

The Militant's view is refreshingly different. The paper describes the Trump phenomena as more a split in the ruling class rather than stupidity by the workers. Quoting Steve Clark,
“For the first time in decades, the US rulers and their government have begun to fear the working class,” Clark notes. “More working people are beginning to see that the bosses and political parties have no ‘solutions’ that don’t further load the costs — monetary and human — of the crisis of their system on us.” The rulers “sense that mounting struggle — class struggle — lies ahead.”
So, according to Steve, desperate times call for desperate measures, and a radically different presidential candidate, one which a big part of the Republican establishment disowned, suddenly becomes the tribune of the bourgeoisie.

But The Militant has long insisted that Trump is not a fascist, as Naomi Craine wrote last April.
“Trump’s not a fascist, he’s a demagogic bourgeois politician,” said Naomi Craine, a leader of the Socialist Workers Party here, who spoke along with Kennedy. “He uses crude anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim rhetoric, and there’s a real edge to his comments on women.” 
What he proposes to do is not much different from the other capitalist politicians, however.
The paper argues that Trump accurately reflects the attitudes of most American workers, but the solutions he proposes are straight from the capitalist playbook. Far from being radical, he's just another capitalist candidate dressed up in proletarian clothing.

I think The Militant is closer to the truth than any other grouplet. Donald is certainly no fascist, as can be seen by his "ground game," or lack thereof. It has been assumed that a presidential candidate needs activists on the ground in an organized Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign. Hillary certainly had that. But Trump, with a staff only a fraction the size of Hillary's, never assembled a ground game.

Yet a ground game is just an incipient fascist gang if the candidate chooses to use it that way. Indeed, both Bernie and Hillary used their ground game in just that way on occasion. But Donald never did that, in part because he never organized a gang to begin with. So he's not a fascist.

The Militant is also correct that Trump has no "solutions." They're hardly unique in pointing that out. But the reason isn't some betrayal of the working class--rather it's that no solutions exist.

  • There is no solution to the health care problem in America that solves all the problems people want solved.
  • There is no solution to the regulatory state--there will always be both too much and too little regulation.
  • There is no solution to structural unemployment in this country.
  • Etc.
Even in a socialist society--especially in a socialist society--no solution to any of these problems will be found.

Let me end with a little psephology of my own. Why did Trump win the election? Simple. He both out-smarted and out-hustled Hillary.

Hillary is stupid, and I mean that in the literal, IQ sense of the word. Anybody who rises to high office has to be smart, and the 17 candidates who initially graced the Republican stage were mostly brilliant. I need only mention Rand Paul and Chris Christie to make my case. And Trump was smarter than most of them.

But Hillary just isn't in that league. She inherited her position solely by virtue of being Bill's wife. Of course being smart isn't everything--after all, Rand Paul isn't president. But it is a prerequisite, one that Hillary couldn't meet.

That's why she lost the election.

Further Reading:

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Trump's Strategy

I think Trump is being very, very clever.

He accuses Hillary of playing the "woman card." And then audaciously claims that "if she were a man she wouldn't get 5% of the vote." (That latter statement is true: were she a man she'd be an establishment figure like Jeb Bush or Martin O'Malley.)

Hillary falls for the trap: she prints up "woman cards" to distribute to her donors, and comes up with PBS-like gifts, such as handbags that proclaim "a woman's place is in the White House."

So people who really care about having a woman for president are probably 20-25% of the electorate. And they're already gonna vote for Hillary, regardless of what Trump says. So he's giving her that slice of the vote.

But what he's also doing is tagging her as a single-issue candidate. The ONLY reason to vote for Hillary, Trump will claim, is because she's a woman. He's cornering her so indelibly as the 'woman candidate' that she'll never get another word in edgewise. If you care about anything else then you should vote for Trump. And as I said, she's falling for it hook, line and sinker.

So expect Trump to keep making attention-getting remarks about Hillary as a woman. That'll win him every news cycle. And then: she voted for the Iraq war; she voted for NAFTA; she supported the TPP; she's against the wall; she couldn't answer the phone at 3am when Benghazi called; she lacks the energy and stamina to be president; she's old and sick. Maybe Corrupt Hillary really is a woman, but she can't Make America Great Again.

If Hillary can't escape that trap then Donald wins hands down.

Further Reading:

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Which Side Are You On Boys?

Which Side Are You On Boys is an old union hymn from the Kentucky coal country and sung in this particularly funereal rendition by Natalie Merchant. The lyrics include this verse:
They say in Harlan County  There are no neutrals there. You'll either be a Union Man, Or a thug for J. H. Claire. 
Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on?
Trotskyists aren't much for hymnody, perhaps because there aren't that many revolutionary tunes. But occasionally--especially at Oberlin conferences--we'd break out into song.

Life was simple back then. We all knew where the class line was. The cops, Democrats, big business, schools, and the military were all on one side. The Vanguard Party, working people, the Vietcong, and the unions were on our side. Nobody had the choice to be neutral.

Since then it's gotten much more complicated. The class line now wiggles, twists and turn through society, separating Uber drivers from taxi cabbies, Ukrainian rebels from the other Ukrainian rebels, this Syrian sect from that Syrian sect, Greenpeace from the Laborers International Union, and so forth.

My Trotskyist friends can no longer agree who's on which side of the increasingly fuzzy boundary. They increasingly disagree with each other.

Of course some things are clear as daylight. Every Trotskyist of whatever denomination believes the Democratic Party to be bourgeois. And likewise Donald Trump represents the capitalist class--indeed, quite proudly so.

The dispute, then, revolves not around the characterization of the presidential candidates, but rather on who their supporter are. Are the supporters of Donald Trump members of the proletariat? Or are they instead an incipient fascist grouping allied with white supremacism and Islamophobia?

And likewise with Bernie Sanders. Socialist Action's Bruce Lesnick recently published a clever piece entitled House socialists and field socialists. The house socialist (Bernie) is in fact a stalking horse for the Democratic Party, for he believes that capitalism can reform itself into a just, humane society. Field socialists (such as my Trotskyist friends) instead fight for a root-and-branch revolution.

Bernie's supporters, fools that they are, have fallen for his scam and have flocked to the banner of the house socialist.
Long-time union activists have frequently asked each other, “Where are all the young workers?” The first answer is that many of them are in the Fight For $15 movement, and the second answer is that they are attending Bernie Sanders rallies. We have seen in the period of about 10 weeks this summer over 100,000 people crammed into sports arenas in a variety of cities to hear Sanders’ populist message about economic inequality and the fight against the “Billionaire Class.” (from Ann Montague's 2015 piece).
Even though Bernie himself is a charlatan, his followers are people Socialist Action wants to recruit to field socialism.

The Militant doesn't disagree with any of this. And like their fellow Trotskyists they'd also stipulate that Donald Trump is a bourgeois figure not to be trusted. Trump supporters, like their Bernie brethren, are equally victimized by false consciousness and an inability to make rational political judgments.

And yet however much they oppose Trump, unlike Socialist Action they are trying to appeal to his supporters. For they believe (correctly) that Trump is attracting blue collar white voters who deserve to learn about socialism. So just as Socialist Action might attend Bernie rallies, so the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) attends Trump rallies.

Dan Fein reports from Chicago.
The organized disruption that forced the cancellation of Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign rally here March 11 “was a blow to free speech,” Socialist Workers Party candidate for president Alyson Kennedy said. “Shutting down political expression is inevitably turned against workers.” 
Kennedy’s statement stands in stark contrast to the celebration of the disruption on the left and among liberals who are increasingly shrill in charging Trump with being the spearhead of a rising racist and fascist movement. This could be “remembered as the dawn of the resistance,” declared Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson March 14.
It is important to note that the SWP remains resolutely Leftist, despite attending these rallies. They don't agree with The Donald at all.
SWP vice-presidential candidate Osborne Hart spoke about why opposing the scapegoating of immigrants, including attacks on Muslims and their mosques, is a life-and-death question for the working class. “These are fellow workers, part of the fight for jobs, for unions, for dignity,” he said. “Unless we approach every worker that way, we can’t build a movement to overturn capitalism.”
Admittedly, Mr. Osborne's remarks were made to an internal audience, not to a group of actual Trump supporters.

But be your audience Bernie's Boys or Donald's Dudes, if you want to talk to somebody you have to treat them like human beings. You can't call them fools or fascists or idiots or unthinking victims of false consciousness. And so Mr. Lesnick opens his piece in a friendly spirit: "I wholeheartedly support the populist programs that Bernie Sanders advocates—from single-payer health care, to free college tuition, to taxing the rich and more."

Similarly, The Militant goes out of its way to defend Trump supporters of being fascists or white supremacists. For if they thought otherwise it would be impossible to even have the conversation.

So there probably isn't a dispute about the class line here. Both grouplets agree that Bernie and Donald represent the class enemy. They likely both agree that their supporters are (in part at least) members of the working class. And yet Socialist Action and most of the other grouplets are going to the Bernie rallies, and as far as I know only The Militant attends to the Trump crowd. Why?

I think there is a distinction between the two crowds--perhaps not a class line, but as Trotskyists might put it, they are different layers of the working class. I've put it in rather pejorative terms in previous posts, which in the interests of civility I'll refrain from here. But the key distinction is their relation to the government.

Bernie's Boys (and Girls) are generally net recipients of tax dollars. They are students ("free tuition for all"), teachers, professors, public employees, and welfare recipients. Some may work in the medical field--nominally private but in reality so heavily regulated and funded that it's essentially tax-supported.

Donald's Dudes (and Dolls) are mostly net payers of tax dollars. They are workers in fast-food places, Walmart, hotels, factories, and businesses across this great land. They are also entrepreneurs and businessmen. The Donald himself is not faking it as a proletarian (which he manifestly isn't), but instead as somebody who pays more taxes than he gets in return. In this he has more in common with any private-sector worker than with the politicians in Washington.

And that distinguishes the politics of the candidates. Bernie advocates for more government spending so that the tax-beneficiaries can get more money and more power. "Free tuition" is an obvious one, as is more money for schools and infrastructure. I'd argue his support for climate change is of the same piece.

Trump, on the other hand, cares much more for the private sector folks. He's not gonna spend more money on schools and colleges than absolutely necessary. Government bennies have to go directly to working people, and not to the bureaucrats and intermediaries in the public employee unions.

Of course Trump's snake-oil won't be anymore successful than Bernie's balderdash in actually making Americans richer. Wealth comes from people spending their own money the way they want to spend it, without government interference. Neither of the candidates seem to understand that.

Still, I'm probably going to vote for Trump in my state's primary. Which side are you on?

Note: Blogging has been light because I was involved in a traffic accident. I have no serious injuries, but it is taking me some time to recover. Should be back to normal soon.

Further Reading:

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Trump & Trotsky

Like many others (including me, I'm ashamed to say), my Trotskyist friends took to calling Donald Trump a fascist. He was, in their view, a nativist, racist, homophobic, "stupid," ignorant, lewd and crude Republican.

As it turns out Trump is not a fascist, but rather something nearly as bad: he's a Democrat. I've made that case (I think convincingly) here, and it's an opinion shared by most of his competitors for the Republican nomination. Donald Trump, far from being a "true conservative," is a big-government liberal long associated with the Clintons. ABC News (h/t HotAir) quotes Ted Cruz claiming Trump supports "touchback amnesty." See also Ted Cruz's (marvelous!) attack ad against him. Despite coming from the Cruz camp, I believe this is factually accurate.

But Mr. Trump is certainly more than just another Democrat. However transient his own political career may or may not be, he represents a significant rearrangement of America's political furniture. Both Democrats and Republicans are fading away, to be replaced by different parties having different agendas (though perhaps they'll keep the same names). I described that in a previous post.

A global realignment of political movements will inevitably have an effect on Trotskyism. Indeed, they'd be deeply insulted if big changes happened without them, believing themselves to be responsive to the "class struggle." While their lodestar supposedly remains unchanged, the tactics must adjust with circumstances.

But Donald Trump drives a wedge right through the middle of Trotskyism. He makes it impossible for them to continue business as usual.

There are two bits to Trotskyist dogma that until recently seemed inseparable. The first is announced on the masthead of The Militant: "A socialist newsweekly published in the interests of working people."

Trump's campaign clarifies what is meant by "working people." There is, indeed, a class conflict in Trump World, but it isn't primarily between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Instead it's between the Producer Class and the Parasite Class. The former are people who build stuff--not just the workers, but also the engineers, architects, financiers and marketers. In response to Elizabeth Warren's infamous charge, "You didn't build that," the Trumpers loudly proclaim "we sure as hell did build that, asshole. Just who do you think you are?" Mr. Trump proudly puts himself on the side of his employees and workers generally, sharing credit with them for manufacturing all the stuff that makes Americans rich.

Of course he's quite right, and workers across the country thrill to his banner.

The Parasites, on the other hand, are personified by Mr. Trump as "the Establishment," or just as often "the Republican Establishment." (His frequent vilification of Republicans is another reason to suppose he's a Democrat in disguise.) These are people who live off of tax dollars. They include all politicians for sure (that's what makes politicians evil), but also most civil servants. Trumpers will regard professors, teachers, federal officials, zoning enforcers, etc., as Parasites, along with welfare and food stamp recipients.

So that makes it sound like Trump is a small-government Republican. But he's not--he just thinks government should spend it's money differently. Social Security needs to be defended and expanded. Obamacare should be "repealed and replaced" so that affordable health care is available to all. (In his previous life Trump supported single-payer.) We need to help our vets. None of this is cheap, but all of it is money that's supposed to go to Producers rather than Parasites. On the other hand, Donald is not a fan of expanding the education or regulatory bureaucracies--they're all Parasites.

Never mind that none of this is ever going to work.

But Trotskyists have a problem. They have to meet the "working class" where they're at, and those folks understand that "workers" are not just factory laborers. The Producing Class even includes some billionaires--people like Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, and Donald Trump. At the same time workers don't generally count public employees among their numbers--those folks tend to be Parasites who deserve to be fired.

So Trotskyists are going to have to address Donald Trump. A commenter on this site (John B.) reports that "the SWP has taken to selling The Militant at Donald Trump rallies lately!" Now The Militant may not agree with Donald (they most probably do not), but they can't simply discount his argument or ignore his audience. On the other hand, other grouplets such as Socialist Action and Solidarity are still dismissing Mr. Trump as a fascist. He isn't.

The other problem Trotskyists have with Donald Trump is political correctness. I think Trotskyists actually invented the concept back in the 1970s, or at very least they took it to unheard of lengths. But the Trumpers understand what PC is really about. It is a tool of the Parasite class to divide and conquer the Producers. After all, property taxes are so high because teachers need generous pension plans, which is all about racial equality dontchyano. If you even bring up the subject you're a racist, sexist, homophobic, knuckledragging, Redneck idiot.

And likewise with the distinction between "people of color" and "colored people," a subtlety that normal people can't comprehend. Or the abolition of "Miss" and "Mrs.", or the ridiculous ban on any synonym for "woman." Or the prohibition on words like "queer" or "fag," even when no insult is intended.

Working people, i.e., "Producers," talk the way normal people talk. They're not privy to the code words that Parasites use to send secret messages to each other. Non-PC language is not usually intended to be insulting, but it is honest. There is, after all, nothing either insulting or dishonest about referring to an unmarried woman as "Miss."

The use of PC language establishes you as a member of the Parasite class. It means you're a politician or a professor or a half-wit bureaucrat or a welfare caseworker or a police officer or some other clown or jerk or asshole. Is that the crowd Trotskyists want to hang out with?

For some, apparently yes. Socialist Action and Solidarity are all-in going after Bernie Sanders supporters. Bernie is the archetypal Parasite, strongly advocating Parasite-friendly policies.

So Trotskyists have a choice. They can either put their chips on PC, abandon the working class and double down with the Parasites. Environmentalism is the classic Parasite issue--it puts Producers out of a job and transfers money to bureaucrats' pockets. It's no surprise that Socialist Action and Solidarity are gradually going from Red to Green.

The Militant on the other hand, is standing true to its masthead. How they deal with political correctness remains to be seen.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Good Trump, Bad Trump

The biggest problem with Donald Trump is that nobody knows just what he will really do after he becomes president. The man speaks with heart, but not with precision. Indeed, rhetoric notwithstanding, his statements are remarkably ambiguous.

Take the most famous one first:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
The implication (since clarified) is that the ban is temporary, but he's never specified for how long. It could be for 30 minutes or 30 years. Either way it sounds cataclysmic, though the reality may be much less so.

So what the hell does this guy have in mind?

The Bad Trump is an unreconstructed nativist who really hates Muslims. Any serious effort to ban their entry into the US will wreak havoc with our foreign policy, as Jeb! made clear during last night's debate. If consistently enforced it would damage our friends more than our enemies.

For the Good Trump, on the other hand, the plea is just a ruse. The total ban (if enforced at all) will operate only for a few weeks and then be relaxed after we've figured it out. What we'll end up with is something very much like what all the other candidates agreed to, namely a moratorium on war refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Trump's bombast merely serves to open the Overton window for this rather reasonable outcome.

Though I have no clue what he really intends.

His initial comments about Mexican immigrants was even more over the top:
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Of course that's a slander. I don't think there's any evidence that Mexican immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are more prone to criminality than anybody else. And they're not sent by the government. On the other hand, he may have a stronger case about immigrants from Central America, especially El Salvador.

Asked by Univision's Jorge Ramos how he would deport 11 million people, Trump said,
We’re going to do it in a very humane fashion. Believe me. I have a bigger heart than you do. We’re going to do it in a very humane fashion. 
You know what it’s called? Management … I’m a great manager. I know how to manage things. I hire unbelievable people. What we’re doing here will work great. 
Once I win, you’re gonna see things happen.
The Bad Trump really believes this. Of course it's impossible--there is no way one could "humanely" deport millions at a low cost.

But the Good Trump isn't so sure. In the same exchange with Mr. Ramos he backs down a bit. Acknowledging that many Mexicans were "good people", he adds "and they're hopefully gonna come back in very soon."

The end result may be sensible immigration reform of the sort Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio have long advocated. This combines greater enforcement at the border with a big, beautiful gate for legal immigrants. As before, by expanding the Overton window he makes a practical solution possible. Though again I have absolutely no clue what his real intentions are.

Finally, this is what Mr. Trump has to say about tariffs on Chinese imports: "I would do a tax. And the tax, let me tell you what the tax should be … the tax should be 45%," But during last night's debate he claims he was misquoted about the 45% figure. But,
"They can't believe how stupid the American leadership is," Trump said of China. "I'm totally open to a tariff. If they don't treat us fairly — hey, their whole trade thing is tariff. You can't deal with China without tariff. They do it to us. We don't do it. It's not fair trade."
The Bad Trump is a devout protectionist--something that will destroy the American economy. The whole "fair trade" wheeze is just an argument for crony capitalism.

But the Good Trump...

Here I am unable to find the Good Trump. I have no quotes where he substantially backs down from this position. So I am afraid that on trade Mr. Trump means exactly what he says. Perhaps this isn't surprising--that a billionaire favors crony capitalism doesn't shock. But it does disappoint, and to my mind nearly disqualifies Mr. Trump from the presidency.

Nearly is the key word. Of course I much prefer either Christie or Rubio as candidates. Even Bush, Carson, or Kasich are better choices (though I'd hold my nose).

But compared to Ted Cruz? Sorry, but in that case I'll vote for Trump. Mr. Trump is a deal-maker. He can negotiate with people. It seems to me his instincts (except on trade) are mostly in the right place. So I can trust him--I think, at least sort of.

Donald Trump reminds me most of FDR. Like Roosevelt, he's not a man of principal. But he has an ability to communicate with the American public that can actually accomplish something. Like FDR, Trump cares not a whit about the Constitution or any other high-minded principal. For him it's all about the Deal. So it will depend on Congress and the courts to keep him in check.

A Trump/Roosevelt presidency is a very big risk. But perhaps we're in a place where such a risk is justified.

Further Reading:

Sunday, January 10, 2016

The Political Report: 2016

Here is a rundown of Conventional Wisdom (CW):
  1. Donald Trump can't win the nomination.
  2. Ted Cruz can't win the general election.
  3. Hillary will win the Democratic nomination.
  4. Marco Rubio is most likely our next president.
  5. Jeb Bush is finished.
  6. There is a split in the Republican Party.
  7. CW is always wrong.
Oh alright--that last item is a joke. Indeed, quite the contrary: when CW is right it's a dog bites man story.

I used to agree with #1, but now I'm not so sure. Donald is not running on an economic or political platform. He doesn't give a rat's patoot about tax policy or ISIS or trade agreements. He is campaigning to defend civilization.
  • He's against political correctness, which is a direct attack on the American way of life.
  • He is against immigration, especially of uncivilized people. He doesn't understand the economics of the issue at all, but he's got the 'civilization' thing down. Especially after the Rape Fest in Germany the point has come into sharp relief.
  • He's against free trade because he wants Americans to have jobs. Here he's just wrong. Restricting trade neither preserves jobs nor does it defend civilization.
  • Donald understands the importance of the military and the police.
  • He calls other politicians stupid. Obviously he's wrong in the IQ sense (nobody's smarter than Rand Paul), but in a cultural sense he's absolutely right. Our politicos have forgotten what civilization is.
So I'm not a Trump supporter--he is not Libertarian enough for me. But I no longer think he's a f***ist. I have accordingly revised my estimate of his chances. I think he could win the nomination, and more, I think he could be our next president. Let's call it 20%.

I can't stand Ted Cruz. He's a smarmy, slimy, unlikable bastard. I prefer any other Republican over him. I am pleased to say that I am not alone in my opinion. While I do think it's possible (unlikely) for him to win the nomination, I don't see how he takes it home in November. He's a niche candidate for angry evangelicals. 5%

If she doesn't get arrested then Hillary will win the nomination. But her chances in November are much worse, for three reasons: 1) she's a crook; 2) It's a Republican year, especially if we enter a recession (increasingly likely) or there's another dramatic terrorist attack; 3) Ted Cruz is not the Republican nominee. 30%

Everybody says Marco is such a talented politician. Maybe. But he's running a terrible campaign. Or maybe it's an excellent campaign in the wrong year. Whatever, I find it increasingly improbable that he can carry the nomination. He's gonna lose in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. So he's toast. 10%

The alternative "establishment" candidate is Chris Christie. His chances will improve if the economy goes south or there's another attack. Also, Black Lives Matter and campus unrest plays into his corner. He has to surprise in New Hampshire, but if he does then I think he goes all the way. 25%

Jeb Bush is a loser. 3%

There is no split in the Republican Party. Donald Trump is a Democrat thinly disguised as a Republican, so if anything there's a split in the Democratic Party. He and Bernie Sanders are going after disaffected White voters with approximately the same program (differing only on immigration). Bernie's chances: 5%

Martin O'Malley: 0.001% (I include that just to be mean.) All other candidates put together: 2%

That adds up to 100%.

A word about my Trotskyist friends:

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) always runs candidates, and they will do so this year. The candidates will be announced in July at the Oberlin conference. They will be on the ballot in 10 states. Unusually, I predict that one member of the ticket will be a white male, to win solidarity from Trump supporters. The other half of the ticket will be "disadvantaged minority," likely Hispanic. 0.000001%

Most other grouplets will support the Green Party candidate. This is especially true of Solidarity, whose banner has long since faded from Red to Green. Louis Proyect will also support the Greens and for similar reasons. All of the grouplets will vigorously oppose the Democratic nominee, whoever he/she is.

Interesting will be the response of Socialist Action (SA), which is also moving in the Green direction, though not yet as far along as Solidarity. In the past SA has always offered "critical support" to the SWP ticket, but the latter is increasingly skeptical of environmentalism. That, along with the SWP's newfound support for Israel, will render them class enemies in the eyes of SA. But the latter can't support the Green Party either, long since condemned as a petty-bourgeois excrescence. So I think they'll just abstain--a typically Trotskyist thing to do.

Bottom line: I think Chris Christie will be our next president. That may be wishful thinking on my part (since I will happily vote for him), but it is my prediction.

Further Reading:

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Politics & Evolution

In which I claim that Dr. Ben Carson and Mr. Louis Proyect hold similar beliefs.

My Trotskyist friends claim to accept the theory of evolution while also denying it. In this they are typical of the Left. And also of the Right.

Louis Proyect is a good example. I reviewed his extensive criticism of Napoleon Chagnon in a post entitled Marxism & Evopsych, which includes a critique of the Marxist view on evolution. I won't repeat that here except to say that contrary to their claim, Marxists deny the theory of evolution, at least as it applies to human beings.

Since writing that review I have read and reviewed two books on the subject: one by Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind), and the other by Nicholas Wade (A Troublesome Inheritance). These render my Marxism & Evopsych remarks somewhat incomplete, and I confess probably lend some credence to Mr. Proyect's complaints against modern Darwinism.

The latter book is particularly troublesome, as the name implies. It argues that ethnic differences are indeed more than skin deep, and also include variations in personality. In particular, the circle of trust appears to be under significant genetic control. People who have lived in urban areas for many generations, for example, will tend to be more trusting of strangers than folks who've spent the last millennium out in the bush. 

Other people (not Mr. Wade) argue that things like IQ is significantly heritable, and that ethnic groups differ in average IQ, often by a significant margin. Indeed, a recent book by Garett Jones (The Hive Mind) argues that the wealth of nations depends crucially on the average IQ of its population. (He speculates that it may depend more strongly on the IQ of the top 5%, though that's unproven.)

Such ideas have a long and disreputable heritage, as Mr. Proyect will be quick to point out. This chart is easily found by searching for "iq by nation". 


It's been reposted by such worthies as Stormfront (I won't honor them with a link) and FreeRepublic. Nevertheless, the data in this chart seem mostly reproducible and correct, as Mr. Jones discusses in detail. (The causes of the phenomenon are a matter of considerable controversy.)

So actually I don't blame Mr. Proyect for denying evolution's application to human beings. It paints a grim picture of our species. Our prognosis is not good. Mr. Proyect aspires to a better world, and in doing so he is forced to deny science.

Another politico who sides with Mr. Proyect is the presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson. Dr. Carson is a retired neurosurgeon, serving as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins for nearly 30 years. As such he must know something about evolution, and it is unlikely that he rejects it altogether. Even though he says "I don't believe in evolution... I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared." [All Carson quotes from Wikipedia.]

Further,
In October 2015, Carson stated that he does accept the idea of natural selection, but there is only evidence for microevolution (changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a species), which he believes was the result of "a wise creator who gave his creatures the ability to adapt to their environment so that he wouldn't have to start over every 50 years", whereas "there's never been one species that's turned into another species, that can be proved." 
But then, with respect to using fetal tissue for research, he said "to not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?"

So like Mr. Proyect, Dr. Carson is inconsistent on evolution. When it comes to his professional life he has at least implicitly accepted it. But in his religious and political world he adamantly rejects it. In this he is like most people--they reject evolution on Sunday when they go to church, but rely on it on Monday when they visit the doctor. Surely this ability to compartmentalize is an evolved, human trait.

It's very difficult to be consistent on evolution. Maybe some devoutly religious people qualify--like those Christian Scientists who reject any and all medical care, or perhaps some of the faculty at Bob Jones University. But such folks are few and far between.

Then there are people who raise evolution to the status of religion: I'd put Stormfront or FreeRepublic in that category. They consider the above IQ chart to be divinely inspired. Leave aside, for the moment, that they don't know what they're talking about.

Also consistent on evolution is Boko Haram. I don't mean in an intellectual sense--I doubt the Bokos know anything about science. But in the way they live their lives they obey evolution's core principles:
  1. The ultimate measure of evolutionary success can be measured by the fertility rate of one's children and grandchildren.
  2. Evolution cares not a whit for the happiness of the individual organism.
So consider the 250+ schoolgirls from Chibok kidnapped by Boko, and then sold off as wives and concubines.
  1. The lifetime fertility of these girls is likely to be very high--at least for those who survive. Four or five children apiece, subsequently yielding 20+ grandchildren is a reasonable guess. Further, the reproductive success of the kidnappers is virtually assured--how many of the girls are already pregnant?
  2. Yet prospects for happiness for the girls is dire. Or, as an evolutionist might put it, who cares.
Compare the Bokos' fertility with that of aging ex-Trotskyists. I don't believe Mr. Proyect has any offspring (or at least none mentioned on his blog). I have two, but not yet any grandchildren. How many unrelated ex-Trotskyists would you have to put in a room before they could cumulatively match the reproductive success of one Boko platoon leader?

There is no doubt, at least compared to Trotskyists, that the Bokos have a better understanding of evolution.

And yet any member of civilized society--among whom I'd count myself and both Dr. Carson and Mr. Proyect--will object. While we might state it differently, our creed maintains We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Of course evolution denies all of this: the Truths are not only not self-evident, they're not even true. We weren't endowed by any creator, and we don't have any unalienable rights. And for Happiness? Just ask the organisms from Chibok about that!

So I sympathize with Misters Proyect & Carson. Their selective denial of evolution is a mark of civilization, not scientific ignorance (though in the case of Mr. Proyect it is that, too). Despite my own passionate defense of the science of evolution, I have no use for those who raise it to moral principle. Accordingly I would never vote for any ultra-rationalist candidate--not Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett or Christopher Hitchens. Nor would I vote for Barack Obama.

Still, I think Dr. Carson gets the better of any debate. He has three children, and one presumes also some grandchildren. Religious people are more able to successfully reproduce, despite denying evolution, than us more secular sorts. This is civilized religion's great advantage: it potentially answers the question of our age: how can we successfully reproduce in an environment that contains birth control and still remain civilized?

I would never vote for Dr. Carson for biology teacher of the year. For other reasons I probably won't vote for him as president. But on the issue of evolution he's probably closest to getting it right.

Evolution is a science. That's all it is. It tells you something about the human species, but it cannot be the moral lodestar or a religious foundation. As Katherine Hepburn famously said, “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”

Further Reading: