Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘USA: politics’ Category

The Brexit vote

Blue = Remain, Red = Leave (credit: The New York Times)

Blue = Remain, Red = Leave (credit: The New York Times)

[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below] [4th update below] [5th update below] [6th update below] [7th update below] [8th update below] [9th update below] [10th update below] [11th update below] [12th update below]

I’m stunned. And it is likewise with just about everyone I know who’s reacted so far on social media, not to mention countless others. It’s the near unanimous reaction by everyone who supported Remain, as it was so utterly unexpected. The collective shock and dismay on my English Twitter feed—which I checked every half hour until 5am, when the outcome was clear—was total. And the final result wasn’t even close. 52-48 is not a cliffhanger. So much for the betting markets, which had reinforced my confidence on the eve of the vote that Remain would win, even handily. And then there are the polling institutes, whose credibility will take another hit. This is disquieting. Political scientist Yascha Mounk, in a commentary on social media last night, noted that the polls had significantly underestimated the anti-establishment vote, which “should give us a healthy degree of skepticism about current U.S. polls that see Trump trailing badly.” As the parallels between the Brexit and Trump phenomenons are manifest—in the composition of their electorates, populist rejection of “elites,” economic precariousness and déclassement, hostility to immigration, nationalism—the point is well-taken.

On the Brexit (and Trump) electorate, political scientist Takis Pappas recommended last night an article in The Telegraph dated June 7th—which he called the “best pre-referendum analysis”—by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “‘Irritation and anger’ may lead to Brexit, says influential psychologist,” the psychologist being Israeli-American Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman. This one is worth quoting extensively:

British voters are succumbing to impulsive gut feelings and irrational reflexes in the Brexit campaign with little regard for the enormous consequences down the road, the world’s most influential psychologist has warned.

Daniel Kahneman, the Israeli Nobel laureate and father of behavioural economics, said the referendum debate is being driven by a destructive psychological process, one that could lead to a grave misjudgment and a downward spiral for British society.

“The major impression one gets observing the debate is that the reasons for exit are clearly emotional,” he said.

“The arguments look odd: they look short-term and based on irritation and anger. These seem to be powerful enough that they may lead to Brexit”…

Further down

Professor Kahneman, who survived the Nazi occupation of France as a Jewish child in the Second World War, said the risk is that the British people will be swept along by emotion and lash out later at scapegoats if EU withdrawal proves to be a disastrous strategic error.

“They won’t regret it because regret is rare. They’ll find a way to explain what happened and blame somebody. That is the general pattern when things go wrong and people are afraid,” he said.

The refusal to face up to the implications of what is really at stake in the referendum comes as no surprise to a man imbued with deep sense of anthropological pessimism.

“Confidence has very little to do with the information on which it is based…”

His life’s work is anchored in studies showing that people are irrational. They are prone to cognitive biases and “systematic errors in thinking”, made worse by  chronic over-confidence in their own judgment – and the less intelligent they are, the more militantly certain they tend to be.

On the Trump phenomenon—which is not off the topic here—Kahneman has this

“Donald Trump is psychologically fascinating. He represents a sort of ideal in that he is very rich, and people want to be rich,” he said.
“He’s a masculine fantasy: lots of money and lots of women. He is not afraid of anything. In the context of politicians who seem to be doing nothing, it feels compelling. He looks strong. He is a bully, and people like bullies,” he said.

Prof Kahneman compares the Trump syndrome to the strange response of Americans to rape cases that he studied in the 1980s. Society has a proclivity to blame the victim – in the Trump saga: Mexicans, Muslims, and others – because people subtly conform to the idea that the rapist cannot act otherwise.

“It is a very interesting phenomenon and it has reached the point where Trump can get away with almost anything. ‘The bully is immutable, it is in his nature, that is what he does’, and once you convince people that it is normal for you to do that kind of thing, you can get away with things that nobody else could get away with,” he said.

Corrosive economic stress seems to be the backdrop for why such a large slice of American society is willing to suspend its normal judgment. He says globalisation was badly managed in favour of winners, and has left a tens of millions of losers.

“It destroyed American manufacturing and the American middle class. There are places where real incomes have dropped 30pc over the last thirty years. There used to be a concept that if you do your job, and live your life properly, things will be fine. People don’t think that any more,” he said.

The piece has other gems, so read it all here.

À propos, I liked this passage by Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum, in an instant commentary last night

I don’t have any personal axe to grind on Brexit. Except for one: I am sick and tired of watching folks like Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump, and others appeal to the worst racial instincts of our species, only to be shushed by folks telling me that it’s not really racism driving their popularity. It’s economic angst. It’s regular folks tired of being spurned by out-of-touch elites. It’s a natural anxiety over rapid cultural change.

Maybe it’s all those things. But at its core, it’s the last stand of old people who have been frightened to death by cynical right-wing media empires and the demagogues who enable them—all of whom have based their appeals on racism as overt as anything we’ve seen in decades. It’s loathsome beyond belief, and not something I thought I’d ever see in my lifetime. But that’s where we are.

On right-wing media, it is clear that this has been a principal factor in the stoking of Europhobic sentiment in the UK. One of my cousins in England—who’s lived in the US—told me last year that a Fox News-type network would not fly in the UK. Well, with high-circulation rags like The Sun, Daily Mail, and Daily Express, who needs a Fox?…

David Cameron, the biggest idiot in the modern history of 10 Downing Street, has naturally announced his resignation, but one other person also needs to quit—or be ejected from his leadership position—and that’s Jeremy Corbyn, who bears at least some responsibility for the outcome in view of his quasi absence from the campaign, barely concealed Euroscepticism, and his passivity as a large portion of his party’s electorate defected to the sirens of UKIP. Corbyn needs to be dumped illico and replaced with Hilary Benn, with a newly pro-Europe Labour absorbing the moribund Lib Dems and perhaps attracting some moderate pro-Europe Tory voters. This will be all the more important if early elections are called, on which I have seen no speculation but seems logical in view of the Brexit victory.

The thing is, the referendum hasn’t decided anything, as it’s not binding. Only the parliament can vote to leave the EU and then ratify a new relationship with it. But what happens if the majority of deputies in the House of Commons are pro-Remain, as is the case today? And Cameron’s successor is likewise? À propos, Business Insider UK had a piece, dated June 21st, arguing “Why a Brexit is unlikely to happen even if the public votes for it.” Money quote

On Monday, Peter Catterall of the University of Westminster spoke with Business Insider to shed more light on why Brexiteers would inevitably be very disappointed by what would follow a Leave victory in the referendum.

“I think that most Leave voters expect to wake up on the 24th no longer in the EU if there is a Brexit vote,” Catterall told Business Insider. “Well, they’re going to be in for a shock.”

For Britain to begin withdrawing from the 28-nation bloc, the government would need to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The majority of Leave voters probably assume that this process would be triggered immediately, but that would probably not be the case.

(…) Pro-Brexit members of Parliament including Michael Gove have said they wouldn’t want to invoke Article 50 for at least two years because it would take that long to find out what sort of deal they could reach before they enter negotiations, Catterall said.

Catterall said: “It’s not just pro-EU Tories who have talked about delaying Article 50. People like Michael Gove have said that they wouldn’t want to implement the Article 50 procedure until at least 2018 because they think it would take a very long time to get things sorted.”

Cameron, who will leave office in October, has already said that it will be up to his successor to invoke Article 50. And unless that successor is the buffoon Boris Johnson—which I don’t see—Article 50 may end up waiting until the Greek Calends.

In this respect—and speaking of Greece—political scientist Michalis Moutselos, in some “scattered thoughts after the Brexit referendum,” made this parallel with the recent experience of his native country

If the Greek post-referendum experience shows anything, there is a way to reverse an anti-EU referendum vote and that is to give those banking on anti-EU populism “full” power to implement whatever their ideas of independence are. It is an enormously expensive crash course though and it leaves everyone poorer in the short term.

Reversing an anti-EU referendum. It’s not out of the question, via a vote in the House of Commons and/or a second referendum called after buyer’s remorse has settled in, particularly when the Scots demand another referendum of their own, plus the Ulster Catholics one to join the Irish Republic. And what if the “elites” decide that there is simply too much at stake on the EU question, that Brexit is too prejudicial to their interests, that the 48% does not want to cede to a 52% driven by fear and ignorance and whipped up by demagogic politicians and a gutter tabloid press, and all because of a merely consultative referendum that should have never been called in the first place? And what if the younger generation—which voted overwhelmingly Remain—decides that it does not want its future on the vital question of Europe decided by old farts who voted majority Leave and will be dead or in their dotage in twenty years? Legitimate questions. So Brexit is not a done deal. It ain’t over till it’s over.

For more on the international legal side of the issue, see yesterday’s post, by Harvard Law School student Zoe Bedell, on the Lawfare blog, “‘Brexit’ Hangover: The Morning After a ‘Leave’ Vote Explained.”

Historian Antony Beevor had a tribune in The Guardian, dated June 20th, “Brexit would make Britain the world’s most hated nation,” which is well worth the read (h/t Claire Berlinski).

A technical question on the referendum: Why does it take so long in the UK to count ballots? In France, where paper ballots are the rule, the count happens quickly. In a high turnout election, it takes 2 hours—and a max of 2½—to tabulate the ballots in a given polling station and certify the result. The procedures are efficient and 100% clean (having supervised some twenty vote counts here, I know of what I speak). 90% of the results are reported within three hours of the closing of the polls. Why is the UK less efficient than France on this score? Just asking.

I have not yet read any of the French reactions. Will do so and follow up.

UPDATE: Alan Renwick—the Deputy Director of The Constitution Unit, of University College London’s political science department—has a highly informative piece, dated June 20th, on the Unit’s website (h/t Jamie Mayerfeld), “The road to Brexit: 16 things you need to know about what will happen if we vote to leave the EU.” The bottom line: the Brexit, if it does come to pass, is going to be, to put it mildly, one huge casse-tête. Objectively speaking, the whole thing is just crazy.

2nd UPDATE: Charles Grant—director of the Centre for European Reform—has an analysis on “The impact of Brexit on the EU.” His conclusion

Given the political toxicity of free movement in the UK, the new prime minister will probably prefer the ‘Canada option’, meaning a free trade agreement (FTA). That would give very limited access to the single market and be particularly painful to the City of London: an FTA would not allow the ‘passporting’ system whereby a bank regulated in London is free to do business across the EU, without the need to be regulated by anyone else. Some foreign banks in the City are already planning to move significant numbers of staff to Frankfurt, Paris, Luxembourg or Dublin.

European leaders will have an interest in ensuring that the EU maintains a close economic relationship with the UK, for everyone’s benefit. But they will not compromise on fundamental principles, such as free movement of labour, as the price for single market access. And they will not want the exit talks to be pain-free, easy or pleasant for the British, since they wish to deter others from following the UK’s example.

See also the article by the CER’s John Springford and Simon Tilford in the January 2016 issue of Prospect, “Twelve things you need to know about Brexit:What would really happen if Britain left the European Union?”

3rd UPDATE: Andrew Moravcsik of Princeton University’s Politics Dept has posted an analysis of the vote on his Facebook page:

I am doubling down on my predictions a month ago about Brexit, linked [here]. Yes, referendums are uncertain, as I noted. But now we come to the interesting part of the prediction. This was, in my interpretation, all about local politics: who will govern Britain? If it is to be Boris Johnson, then he needs a united Conservative Party, with business interests behind him, and a policy that actually makes economic sense. Anyone who heard Boris Johnson’s speech this morning heard an entirely different individual than the Trumpesque populist who spoke just 24 hours ago: all about unity, pro-Europe, praising Cameron–because now it’s all about being PM. And now, despite saying yesterday that Britain would “thrive” outside the EU, he’s all for slowing it down: 6 months to a leadership change, maybe no Article 50, take it all at a leisurely pace. This is because, policy-wise, he has only two choices: negotiate something similar to current EU membership inside or outside the EU. Remember this is a guy who, just eight weeks ago, entered the referendum campaign with the public position that Britain could use a “Leave” vote to renegotiate Britain’s status within the EU and hold a second referendum. So I assume that’s his “real” preference. But even if that can’t be achieved, the stated Leave and Boris position has been to assure voters they can have all of the single market and, Johnson added today, defense, intelligence sharing, and foreign policy cooperation as well, from outside the EU as well. (Of course the notion that a British government would agree to accept the status of Switzerland or Norway–i.e. the substantive equivalent of EU membership, except perhaps free movement (of people), in exchange for surrendering democratic input into the making of those EU rules–is perverse for those who claimed Leave was not about nationalism but about democracy, but expecting consistency in ambitious politicians is unrealistic.) I stick by my argument: no matter what Britain pretends to do, there is no alternative to de facto EU membership–and Boris, a former mayor of London, is smart enough to see it and position himself appropriately.

4th UPDATE: Peter A. Hall, who teaches politics and European studies at Harvard and LSE, has a post on WaPo’s Monkey Cage blog, “The Brexit referendum: Britain between the past and the future.” This passage is noteworthy

Thus, the Leave side represents something of an unholy coalition. The referendum was sparked by demands from segments of the Conservative political elite for relief from the regulations of the E.U. in the name of national sovereignty. But focus groups organized for the vote revealed that most ordinary people had no idea what sovereignty actually means.

Instead, the issue dominating the vote was immigration, and the margin of victory for Leave came from traditional Labour voters worried that an influx of workers from Europe was depressing their wages or taking their jobs. That influx is real. While Britain had 66,000 immigrants from the E.U. in 2003, 270,000 came last year. However, it is notable that support for Brexit was strongest in areas with little immigration and weakest in London, a cosmopolitan city where nearly half the residents are foreign-born. To borrow an older terminology, this referendum pitted Britain’s most vibrant “boroughs” against its “shires.”

On the views of “ordinary people” who voted Leave, see this report on Channel 4 News. À chacun de faire sa propre appréciation.

On citizens voting en connaissance de cause—or maybe not—and some having immediate buyer’s remorse, WaPo has a report on how “The British are frantically Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it.” It seems that a sizable number of voters cast ballots on the EU without having a clear idea of what the EU is or how it works. Having lived through the 2005 referendum campaign on the European Constitutional Treaty, I can attest that voters in France are hardly better informed on the EU than their UK counterparts.

5th UPDATE: Libération’s Brussels correspondent Jean Quatremer has a comment on one possible implication of a Brexit, which is the status of the English language in the bodies of the European Union. English, as one knows, has become predominant in the work of the European Commission but, as Quatremer notes, if the UK leaves the EU, there will be no EU member for whom English is the declared official language (member states being allowed to declare only one language for the purposes of the EU; Ireland having thus chosen Gaelic, Cyprus Greek, and Malta Maltese). If English is the official language of no member state, then it logically follows that English can no longer be one of the three official languages for the work of the Commission, meaning that documents may no longer be written in it. The member states could, of course, vote to maintain English nonetheless but this would open a whole new can of worms, as Quatremer points out. Another sacré Brexit casse-tête.

6th UPDATE: Timothy Garton Ash has a powerful, must-read essay in The Guardian, “As an English European, this is the biggest defeat of my political life.”

7th UPDATE: A British friend here, now retired, who spent most of his career working with organisms of the European Union, has written the following to me in an email:

I’m floored. It is a physical body blow… and yes, I think it is a global disaster.

In the bigger picture (beyond EU countries to Trumpistan), I see at least 4 ideas

a) Globalisation (of which EU is a part) and technological change have left large sections of society behind – they do not have the skills to compete (and if we face the politically incorrect truth, they do not have the mental capacities – skills can be learned); we have created an underclass in a 1984 world, which is now in revolt. We will need to find a new social contract.

b) Our socially driven communication and education systems have dumbed down political discourse and we have delegitimised rational thought (including science); the general level of public education is low except for elites. The media has failed to challenge the untruths and simplifications. In other words it has failed as a constitutional bulwark which puts our democratic systems in peril. “Post-truth” politics can only lead to failure of our democracies and our human rights protections.

c) Democracy has been captured by the elites, but we have not found a way to make societal decisions which reflect the legitimacy of listening to the people and the requirement that, in a complex world, we need professional technocratic decision making (i.e. elites know best but don’t have legitimacy to decide).

d) The baby boomers have despoiled the environment and the economy in their favour and have screwed the younger generation

I am so disgusted, I can’t think anymore.

Friends and relatives of mine in England – plus Facebook friends there I don’t know personally and others I see on social media – are devastated by the referendum outcome. A sample:

A cousin (retired): “I am devastated… On the streets in St Albans over the past week I’ve heard some really idiotic and intolerant views expressed. What does it say about the culture of this country?”

Another cousin (lawyer in the City), early Friday morning: “Christ, watching Nigel Farage gloating over ‘his victory’. Am so depressed there are only two places for me today – in bed or at the pub.”

A friend (academic): “I’m going to cry… Feels like the apocalypse… It feels like 9/11 to be honest. I mean no comparison of course in terms of devastation and destruction, but same Holy Shit feeling.”

8th UPDATE: An FT reader (name unknown) has this excellent, must-read comment—which has been Tweeted and shared on Facebook by tens of thousands—on the “three tragedies” of the Brexit vote. [Update: The author of the comment is a Florence-based political journalist named Nicholas Barrett].

9th UPDATE: Here’s the best data I’ve seen on “How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why.” From Lord Ashcroft Polls (h/t Bob Bonwitt).

10th UPDATE: Two fine analyses by social scientists: “Thoughts on the sociology of Brexit,” by Will Davies of Goldsmiths, University of London, on the Political Economy Research Centre Blog; and “Britain riding the tectonic plates,” by David Held of Durham University, in Social Europe.

In his essay, Will Davies links to a four-minute video reflection, two days before the referendum, by Adam Ramsay and Anthony Barnett of OpenDemocracy UK, who spent a day interviewing voters in heavily pro-Leave Doncaster, in South Yorkshire. As they learned, those intending to vote Leave expected nothing to change for them in the event of a Brexit, there was practically no campaign in the city or any public debate or discussion over the issues or what was at stake, the Labour Party—the nº1 party there—was all but absent, and the pro-Leavers were devoid of any positive vision of the future. in other words, the act of voting Leave was a coup de gueule, or cri de cœur (choose your metaphor). Takeaway: People were going vote because the referendum had been organized and with the question of Brexit put to them, but they hadn’t demanded this. The referendum was, as is known to all, a base political maneuver by David Cameron to deal with an internal problem in his political party. It should have never been organized. And its outcome should be disregarded.

11th UPDATE: One consequence of Brexit: “UK scientists could lose $1.4 billion annually after leaving the EU,” in Big Think; and “Britain’s shaky status as a scientific superpower: Researchers say the country’s decision to leave the EU will reverse decades of academic gains,” in The Atlantic.

And this from The Guardian’s ‘EU Referendum Reality Check’ page: “Would Europeans be free to stay in the UK after Brexit? The leave campaign insists EU nationals already in Britain would be able to stay – but immigration lawyers say it’s not so simple.”

Seriously, who needs this?

12th UPDATE: Andrew Moravcsik has posted another thought on his Facebook page

When I predict that within 2-3 years there will either be a renegotiation with the EU (with or without the second referendum for which 1.5 million Brits have already petitioned), as Boris Johnson was advocating three months ago, or negotiation of a status equivalent to membership outside, it’s things like this statement that will push voters there. This is the type of cynical bait-and-switch of which politics is made—but now it will work for Europe.

Voter’s remorse will increase, one may be sure of that, toward which pro-Leave politicians—particularly Tories—will not be insensitive. And these politicians will, one hopes, be attentive to the expressions of despair and fear by young people—voters themselves and the children of theirs—who do not want to quit the EU.

Read Full Post »

Trump (what else?)

(Credit: Ian Bremmer)

(Credit: Ian Bremmer)

[update below]

Everyone’s seen his Cinco de Mayo tweet of last Thursday. Looking at it slightly agape, I proceed to do something I had heretofore not done, which was to go through The Donald’s Twitter feed. It’s a spectacle to behold. If you haven’t seen it, you must. Click here, scroll down, and then keep scrolling. One is simply amazed that these are the public words of the presumptive presidential nominee of one of the two major parties—that a hypothetical president of the United States can trash talk this way and with political impunity—but one is riveted to them nonetheless. There’s something brilliant about the way Trump has mastered the new media platforms (not to mention older ones, like television). I shudder to imagine what Jean-Marie Le Pen would have done with Twitter and other social media has these existed in the 1980s and ’90s.

On the Cinco de Mayo tweet, Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum thought everyone was “badly misinterpreting” it; it was, Drum insisted, “really a genius tweet,” showing that “Trump is playing this game at a higher level than most of his critics.”

One critic who looks to be playing the game at Trump’s level is Elizabeth Warren, who’s been tweetstorming him back, giving as good as she gets. Way to go, Madame la Sénatrice!

Vox’s Andrew Prokop has a must-read interview (May 6th) with Norm Ornstein, “[t]he political scientist who saw Trump’s rise coming.” As I mentioned in the preceding post, I began to take Trump seriously after reading Ornstein last August. Lots of good stuff in the interview, e.g. this response to Prokop’s question on where Ornstein thinks the anger within the Republican Party electorate has come from and why it’s so powerful

When you look at populism over the longer course of both American history and other countries that have suffered economic traumas as a result of financial collapse, you’re gonna get the emergence of some leaders who exploit nativism, protectionism, and isolationism. They’re components — sometimes greater, sometimes lesser — that are baked into the process. So you’ve got a bit of that.

But if you forced me to pick one factor explaining what’s happened, I would say this is a self-inflicted wound by Republican leaders.

Over many years, they’ve adopted strategies that have trivialized and delegitimized government. They were willing to play to a nativist element. And they tried to use, instead of stand up to, the apocalyptic visions and extremism of some cable television, talk radio, and other media outlets on the right.

And add to that, they’ve delegitimized President Obama, but they’ve failed to succeed with any of the promises they’ve made to their rank and file voters, or Tea Party adherents. So when I looked at that, my view was, “what makes you think, after all of these failures, that you’re going to have a group of compliant people who are just going to fall in line behind an establishment figure?”

Trump clearly had a brilliant capacity to channel that discontent among Republican voters — to figure out the issues that’ll work, like immigration, and the ways in which populist anger and partisan tribalism can be exploited. So of course, to me, he became a logical contender.

On how the Republican Party has gotten to where it is today, with Trump as its presumptive nominee

Back in 1978, when I first came to AEI, Tom Mann and I set up a series of small, off the record dinners with some new members of Congress. And one of them, Newt Gingrich, stood out right away. As a brand new member of the House, he had a full-blown theory of how Republicans could break out of their seemingly permanent minority, and build a majority.

And over the next 16 years, he put that plan into action. He delegitimized the Congress and the Democratic leadership, convincing people that they were arrogant and corrupt and that the process was so bad that anything would be better than this. He tribalized the political process. He went out and recruited the candidates, and gave them the language to use about how disgusting and despicable and horrible and immoral and unpatriotic the Democrats were. That swept in the Republican majority in 1994.

The problem is that all the people he recruited to come in really believed that shit. They all came in believing that Washington was a cesspool. So what followed has been a very deliberate attempt to blow up and delegitimize government, not just the president but the actions of government itself in Washington.

And Republican leaders, like Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, were complicit in this. I think when Republicans had their stunning victory in 2010, Cantor et al thought they could now co-opt these people. Instead, they were co-opted themselves.

As for Trump’s chances in the general election, the temperamentally prudent Ornstein offers this

I think if we’re laying the odds here, I still think it is more like 80/20 that he loses. There are a lot of reasons to think that he is not gonna be able to expand this message to a much larger group of people once you move beyond trying to impress a Republican Party audience.

(…) Having said that, I would not discount entirely the possibility that he could win, for the following set of reasons.

One, tribalism is still a dominant force. We do know that straight-ticket voting has increased dramatically. This to me suggests we’re not gonna have a 45-state blowout like Goldwater faced, or a 49-state one like Mondale or McGovern had. You’re gonna start with some states and you’re gonna start with 45 percent of the votes. Most Republicans are gonna come back into the fold.

And then, what if Brexit happens and you get turmoil in the global economy? And it affects the US? What if ISIS decides that a Trump presidency would be wonderful, so let’s stage a couple of showy, Paris-type attacks in the US in October?

When you have an election and history is not to be completely discounted, we know that elections that occur after eight years of a two-term president focus around how much change you want. And Hillary Clinton still has that hurdle to overcome that she’s not exactly a candidate of change. And if events occur that create more of a desire for change, then people might roll the dice with Trump.

So I don’t discount it entirely. And I think 20 percent sounds like not much, but is quite tangible.

Correct. In my reckoning, the probability of Trump defeating Hillary in November is roughly that of Marine Le Pen winning the French presidential election next May, which is not going to happen. Except that one can come up with not totally outlandish scenarios in which it does…

To read the Ornstein interview in its entirety—which is well worth the while—go here.

For more on this aspect of the Trump story, see the article in the NYT (May 7th), “Republican Party unravels over Donald Trump’s takeover,” by Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin. Money quote

[Trump] has amplified his independent, outsider message in real time, using social media and cable news interviews — and his own celebrity and highly attuned ear for what resonates — to rally voters to his side, using communication strategies similar to those deployed in the Arab Spring uprising or in the attempts by liberals and students to foment a similar revolution in Iran.

“Trump leveraged a perfect storm,” said Steve Case, the founder of AOL, in an email message. “A combo of social media (big following), brand (celebrity figure), creativity (pithy tweets), speed/timeliness (dominating news cycles).”

Mr. Trump is an unlikely spokesman for the grievances of financially struggling, alienated Americans: a high-living Manhattan billionaire who erects skyscrapers for the wealthy and can easily get politicians on the phone. But as a shrewd business tactician, he understood the Republican Party’s customers better than its leaders did and sensed that his brand of populist, pugilistic, anti-establishment politics would meet their needs.

After seething at Washington for so long, hundreds or thousands of miles from the capital, many of these voters now see Mr. Trump as a kind of savior. Even if he does not detail his policies, even if his language strikes them as harsh sometimes, his supporters thrill more to his plain-spoken slogans like “Make America Great Again” than to what they see as the cautious and poll-tested policy speeches of Mr. Ryan and other Washington Republicans.

On Hillary Clinton and whether or not she should now move to the center—to attract moderate Republicans—or tack left to win over skeptical Bernie supporters, David Frum, writing in The Atlantic, not surprisingly argues for the former. Vox’s Matthew Yglesias rightly counters, however, that “Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to choose between a reassuring campaign and progressive policies.”

Check out this anti-Trump ad currently airing in Arkansas, which is “a preview of Democratic attacks to come.”

So how many self-identified Republican voters will decline to vote for Trump in November? With all the dissension and tumult in the GOP, it’s hard to see him getting anywhere near the 93% who voted Romney in 2012 (whereas one does not imagine Hillary getting much less than the 92% of Democrats who voted Obama). One voter who will definitely not be casting his ballot for Trump is the NYT’s moderate rightist intello columnist Ross Douthat, who laid out yesterday “The conservative case against Trump.” And then there’s a Trumpophobic right-of-center friend of mine, who categorically informed me in an email today

I’ll probably vote for Hillary or vote Libertarian unless the GOP manages to choke out a reasonable Third Party candidate. It’s important that the Trump wing not only lose, but be savagely thrashed, to the point that Trumpism is comprehensively discredited. Sadly, I don’t know if even a devastating loss in the election will achieve that. To eradicate that political impulse in Germany, the place had to be firebombed, leveled, occupied, and divided for half a century — and the surviving leaders of the movement had to be hanged.

On the bright side, Trump has united my friends on both sides of the political spectrum. Like Pauline Kael, I don’t know anyone who’s going to vote for him.

I somehow doubt that my friend will reconsider her position as the campaign moves into the summer and fall…

On the matter of an anti-Trump, conservative-compatible third party candidate, historian Josh Zeitz, harking back to Jimmy Carter’s insurgent 1976 candidacy, writes in Politico (May 3rd) that this is “The worst way to stop a front-runner,” explaining what the #NeverTrump people can learn from the establishment Democratic Party’s last-ditch “Anybody But Carter” effort forty years back (was it that long ago?! that was my first presidential election as a voter…).

For a spot on commentary, see Paul Krugman’s column in today’s NYT, “The making of an ignoramus.” The lede: “Trump’s bad ideas are largely a bombastic version of what many in his party have been saying.”

In case one missed it, social scientists Stefan Pfattheicher and Simon Schindler have a research article entitled “Misperceiving bullshit as profound is associated with favorable views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and conservatism,” published April 29th in the peer-reviewed open access scientific journal PLoS ONE. I thought at first that this was a parody à la Alan Sokal but ascertained that it was indeed legit, as Messrs Pfattheicher and Schindler are veritable legit professors, at Universität Ulm and Universität Kassel respectively. Asheley R. Landrum—Howard Deshong Postdoctoral Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania—was, however, not impressed with their argument or use of data, riposting on her blog (May 5th), “When studies studying bullshit are themselves bullshit...” She begins

We have a problem with PLoS publishing bullshit studies.

One has no doubt not missed the two recent profiles of hypothetical future First Lady Melania Trump, one by Julia Ioffe in GQ—which earned her a torrent of abuse from Trumpistas focusing on her ethno-confessional identity—the other by Lauren Collins in The New Yorker. Michelle she’s not, ça c’est sûr.

À suivre, évidemment.

UPDATE: Political scientist Shadi Hamid, who is based at the Brookings Institution, has an excellent, must-read article (May 6th) in The Atlantic, “Donald Trump and the authoritarian temptation.” The lede: “The candidate has exposed the tension between democracy and liberal values—just like the Arab Spring did.”

Also see the piece (May 3rd) by political analyst Cliston Brown in the New York Observer, “No amount of working-class whites can win Trump the White House.” The lede: “Here’s the truth: There just aren’t enough ‘angry white men’.” As it happens, the publisher of the Observer, Jared Kushner, is Donald Trump’s son-in-law.

Read Full Post »

(photo credit: AP)

(photo credit: AP)

[update below]

The short answer: no. The long answer: no, he can’t, and he won’t. I’ve already laid out my argument on this, e.g. here, and am not going to do so again, except to make a couple of points—that I’ve been arguing on social media since yesterday—and link to good analyses and commentaries since Indiana for those who are interested. E.g. in one exchange yesterday on a third-party thread, I responded to a comment by a knowledgeable French observer, who submitted that both Trump and Cruz could possibly defeat Hillary, with this

I respectfully disagree… The polls have showed Clinton beating both Trump and Cruz by similar margins (the latest poll has HRC at +13 over Trump, +10 over Cruz). There is, in any case, no way Trump will win the election (or that Cruz could have had he stayed in the race and gone on to win the nomination). If one wishes to argue that these two Republicans could win in November, I’d like to hear how they do it: what 2012 Obama states they would flip to get over 270 EVs and what the demographics of their victorious coalition would be, i.e. what Obama voters they would attract? I’m sorry but I do not see it.

He replied by bringing up working class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin. My rejoinder

So you think white working class voters in WI and PA who went for Obama in 2012 and ’08—and for Kerry and Gore against Bush, and for Bill Clinton both times—will, for some mysterious reason, suddenly defect to Trump in 2016? But why would this happen? Pour mémoire, PA has not voted Republican in a presidential election since 1988 and WI since ’84. There is, in any case, no polling data to suggest that Trump can flip these two states, or OH for that matter. It doesn’t make sense. As for IN, this is normally a Republican state (’08 was an aberration), but in which Hillary and Bernie together received more votes than did Trump yesterday (and I assure you, hardly any of those Bernie voters will go for Trump this November). And whatever new WC votes Trump picks up in November will be more than offset by moderate Republicans—and, above all, women—who will defect to Hillary.

In any case, the white WC vote is neither monolithic nor significant enough to move national election outcomes. And any white WC voters inclined to vote Trump have already been voting R for years now.

For more on this, see Nate Silver on “The mythology of Trump’s ‘working class’ support,” in which he informs us that “[Trump’s] voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.”

As for other good analyses and commentaries:

President Trump? Not likely,” by Drake University law professor Anthony J. Gaughan, in The Conversation. The lede: “The GOP nomination may be Trump’s, but the general election is another story.”

Donald Trump’s victory proves Republican voters want resentful nationalism, not principled conservatism,” by Vox’s Ezra Klein. Make sure to watch the six-minute video between nº 8 and 9, where Klein—who absolutely, totally nails it—explains why Trump cannot suddenly decide to become a “moderate”—and, ergo, why it is hard to take his chances in November seriously.

Republicans have a massive electoral map problem that has nothing to do with Donald Trump,” by WaPo’s Chris Cillizza. See also, from last August: “Electoral map: How Hispanic and Asian voters could change the Electoral College.”

The great Trump reshuffle,” by NYT contributor Thomas B. Edsall. The lede: “The 2016 election will deepen the division between those who support the social and cultural revolutions of the past five decades and those who remain in opposition.” Edsall, always sober in his analyses, offers this

The nomination of Donald Trump will sharpen and deepen the Republican Party’s core problems. Trump gains the party ground among declining segments of the population — less well educated, less well off whites — and loses ground with the growing constituencies: single women, well-educated men and women, minorities, the affluent and professionals.

Trump begins in a massive hole,” by Politico’s Steven Shepard. The lede: “The presumptive GOP nominee trails Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders by polling margins not seen in a generation.”

In the same vein: “Donald Trump isn’t going to be president,” by Slate’s Jamelle Bouie. The lede: He’d have to win unprecedented shares of the very kinds of voters who hate him: blacks, Latinos, and women.”

Also in this vein, see the remarkable post by the très conservateur blogger Erick Erickson, who is a major voice on that end of the political spectrum, “Indiana Republicans hand Hillary Clinton the White House.”

Another conservative blogger, Ben Howe, had a widely-remarked upon post on the hard-right Red State blog Tuesday night, slamming Trump and fellow conservatives who support him: “I lied to myself for years about who my allies were. No more.” He later followed up with this tweet to his 46K followers: #ImWithHer. Wow.

Glenn Greenwald—who, while often right, is invariably an insufferable jerk—has a self-satisfied piece, co-authored with Zaid Jilani, in which he gives his fellow journalists a hard time, “Beyond Schadenfreude, the spectacular pundit failure on Trump is worth remembering.” Indeed. Quant à moi, I went along with the pundit crowd—notably Nate Silver—in a post last August 9th, in which I dismissed Trump’s chances, but—following Norm Ornstein—changed my tune two weeks later, when I started to take Trump more seriously.

It really is quite stunning, isn’t it? Who could have possibly imagined that, as of May 2nd, Trump would be the only Republican candidate left standing? He’s vanquished them all. There will be no contested or brokered convention after all. C’est vraiment incroyable.

Any idea of who his Veep pick may be? I can’t imagine what fool would want to run that errand. Marco Rubio is one name that’s floating. If that happens, all I will say is ‘oy vey!’

Hillary’s attack ads have now begun. And the first one’s a good one. Bring it on! The more the merrier.

UPDATE: Bernie supporters on social media continue to harp on about Hillary’s putative vulnerabilities against Trump, with many suggesting that she could lose. But they do not consider “what a Republican attack on Bernie Sanders would look like,” as Michelle Goldberg speculates on in Slate (May 2nd), asserting, rightly so IMO, that “Sanders’ ‘superior electability’ is still a myth.” See also William Saletan’s Slate piece (April 26th), “Polls say Bernie is more electable than Hillary. Don’t believe them.”

Read Full Post »

Clinton vs Trump projection_Screenshot by Ryan Witt

[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below] [4th update]

Nice-looking map, though is not for real—at least not yet. It’s a projection of the outcome of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump general election match-up based on polls taken in May and June of last year, which were worth what they were worth. I’m dubious about some of it—e.g. I really don’t see Wyoming voting Democratic under any circumstances and it is not out of the question that Texas could go blue—but am nonetheless confident that this is pretty much how the map will look on the night of November 8th in the now likely event that we do get that Clinton-Trump contest.

Continuing from my post of yesterday, in which I touched on the eventual legacy of Bernie Sanders’s candidacy, a likely one—that one hopes for, at any rate—is that it will push the Democratic Party to the left on issues relating to economic inequality, with the Dems advocating increased government action to reduce this. Bernie supporters are quite certain that such will not happen with Hillary in the White House but blogger-political science professor Scott Lemieux begs to differ. In a piece in TNR (April 29th) he explains, convincingly IMO, “Why Hillary will govern more like Bernie than people think,” arguing that if the Dems as a whole move left, Hillary will too, as, “in the end, parties matter just as much as individuals.” If Hillary is to govern from the left, though, it will be important that Bernie’s supporters stay mobilized and work within the Democratic Party, so Markos Moulitsas—founder-editor of the Über-partisan Daily Kos—exhorted them to do in a commentary after last Tuesday’s primaries.

Foreign policy is sure to be an issue in the campaign, particularly in view of what Trump has had to say on the subject, notably in his speech last Wednesday, which analyst Fred Kaplan trenchantly called “the most senseless, self-contradicting foreign policy speech by any major party’s presidential nominee in modern history” and “even more incoherent than his impromptu ramblings.” The Donald’s speech, needless to say, got low marks across the political spectrum (the NYT editorial on the speech has this great line: “When one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when one’s experience is limited to real estate deals, everything looks like a lease negotiation.”).

Hillary, ça va de soi, has no such credibility problem when it comes to foreign policy, though lefties have been denouncing her as a neocon warmonger for years. And more grist was added to the left’s Hillary hysteria mill with the NYT Magazine’s widely read article last week on “How Hillary Clinton became a hawk,” with author Mark Landler observing that “[t]hroughout her career [Hillary Clinton] has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama—and most Democrats.” Landler’s piece—an excerpt of his newly published book, which looks most interesting—quite literally struck terror into one well-known Hillary-hating Bernie Bro academic political science friend—otherwise a smart guy but who has a severe case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome—who asserted on social media that “I really do fear for what she would do as president.” He and other lefties have indeed been of the intimate conviction that Hillary, the day she takes office, will look around for a war to start, that she will order the Pentagon to attack some country, probably in the Middle East but maybe anywhere. And why will she do this? Because she likes war. And she’s Hillary Clinton. C’est tout.

People need to get a grip. Landler’s piece did indeed reveal Hillary’s deep respect for the men and women of the US military, her internationalism, and greater propensity than President Obama to advocate the use of force in situations where the option is seriously on the table. In this, she may be a little more hawkish than other establishment Democrats but, I would venture, no more so than her husband was, or than Al Gore or John Kerry likely would have been had they been elected POTUS. Her 2002 Iraq vote is a big stain—and that lefties do not forgive her for (though it wasn’t redhibitory for them in John Kerry’s case in ’04)—but would she have attacked Iraq had she been in the Oval Office at the time? I doubt it. Really.

Hillary is also being pilloried by lefties for the Libya intervention—for which she was the leading proponent in the administration—and particularly for the failure to adequately anticipate and deal with the aftermath. Personally, I thought Libya was a close call but tilted toward intervention; and once Obama made the decision, I was 100% gung-ho. As for the post-regime change planning, sure, this didn’t happen the way it should have, but it didn’t seem that way at the time. And I don’t recall any of today’s Monday morning Cassandra quarterbacks warning of it back then. Syria: Hillary was the most interventionist actor in the Obama administration through 2012. I didn’t share her viewpoint. But the Syria policy she advocated was not beyond the pale among Democrats—and was indeed that of certain Syria specialists whose analyses I respect. And Israel and her AIPAC speech? Ouf. So what? What difference does it make?

In short, Hillary is getting a bum rap from the left on foreign policy. In point of fact, she is an establishment Democrat and mainstream Hamiltonian—in the Walter Russell Mead sense—in her foreign policy positioning. Though I have largely sided with Obama in his foreign policy decisions, I don’t have a problem with Hillary in this domain. And Hillary’s “toughness”—how I hate that word—on foreign policy will likely draw Republican defectors in November—who will discount her progressive positions on domestic issues (banking on the GOP holding the House and thereby acting as a brake). And the more Republican defectors, the wider her margin of victory will be and, consequently, the better Democratic candidates down-ballot are likely to perform. So let’s keep our eyes on the big picture.

But “[i]s Hillary Clinton really the foreign policy super-hawk she is portrayed to be?” so asks Vox’s Max Fisher? Answer: it’s a complicated question but, in short, no, she is, in fact, not; and she is far more dovish than any of the remaining Republican candidates. And, pour mémoire, she wholeheartedly supported the Iran deal and secretly pushed for normalization with Cuba for years before it finally happened.

All this being said, though, I still feel more comfortable with Bernie’s foreign policy vision as spelled out by UMass Amherst political science professor and informal Bernie adviser Charli Carpenter, in a post (April 27th) on WaPo’s Monkey Cage blog.

On the subject of foreign policy, did one see Obama’s speech in Hannover last Monday, in which he spoke about Europe? If not, watch it here. He’s excellent, comme d’hab’.

Some have expressed concern about Hillary being indicted for the email business, which would put a serious crimp in her candidacy indeed. But in point of fact, she most likely won’t be indicted and shouldn’t be, as Richard O. Lempert—the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan—explained in an “objective legal analysis” in The American Prospect (March 20th), asserting that “[t]here is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.” And how likely is it that the Obama administration’s Justice Department will legally pursue Hillary over this?

As for the emails, The Guardian’s political columnist Jill Abramson read through them, leading her to assert (March 28th) that “[t]his may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest,” adding that “I investigated Hillary and know she likes a ‘zone of privacy’ around her[; t]his lack of transparency, rather than any actual corruption, is her greatest flaw.” And then, FWIW, there’s the témoignage by an anonymous activist, who wrote that “[she] was one of the most ardent Hillary haters on the planet…until [she] read her emails.”

And Hillary’s speeches at Goldman Sachs and her stonewalling on releasing the transcripts? MoJo’s Kevin Drum is pretty sure there’s nothing there—that, as an issue, it’s one big nothing—and that “[e]veryone knows why [she] won’t release her Goldman Sachs speeches.”

And then there was Charles Koch saying that he could just possibly vote for Hillary in November, which prompted an “aha!” from Hillary-hating gauchistes on social media (which I saw with my own eyes). But The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who has written the most important book out there on the Koch brothers and their malevolent influence in the GOP—and in American politics more generally—dismissed that out of hand (April 26th), saying “Koch for Clinton? Not a chance.”

On the Republicans, just four points. First, though I am not displeased by the prospect of Trump’s nomination—in view of the debacle it will bring about for the GOP in November—I nonetheless adhere to Slate columnist Jamelle Bouie’s sentiment (April 27th) on Trump’s apparent triumph, which is “Don’t ever get used to it: This is unprecedented and terrifying.” Second, in case one missed it, read Paul Krugman’s April 25th column on the “The 8 A.M. Call,” on how we would really not want to have Trump or Ted Cruz at the helm in the event of a sudden global financial meltdown. Third, Trumpism is the likely future of the Republican Party—and Clintonism of the Democrats—as Michael Lind argued (April 16th) in the NYT. Fourth, as Politico reports (April 29th), both Dem and GOP insiders are convinced that “Clinton [will] crush Trump in November.” Voilà.

UPDATE: There have actually been a few analyses of Trump’s foreign policy speech by serious persons that have been less dismissive of it than those of most mainstream commentators. E.g. Jacob Heillbrun—editor of The National Interest—explained in Politico (April 27th) “Why [he] hosted Trump’s foreign policy speech.” Writing in TPM (April 28th), John Judis asserted that “Trump’s foreign policy speech should be discussed not dismissed.” Salon’s foreign affairs columnist Patrick L. Smith submitted (April 28th) that “Trump opposed Iraq, Hillary voted for war: Let’s take his foreign policy vision seriously,” further opining that “Trump gets some things very wrong, but [the] speech was still daring, spot on and [an] important contrast with Hillary.” And the Financial Times’s Edward Luce weighed in on the speech in a column (May 1st) entitled “Donald Trump’s war with best and brightest,” in which he asserted that “[Trump’s] confused foreign policy still offers a legitimate contrast to Clinton’s.”

John Judis has another column on Trump in TPM (May 1st), BTW, this on his economic vision: “Trumponomics explained – sort of.”

2nd UPDATE: NYT columnist Ross Douthat has had a couple of good pieces of late. One, “The idea of Trump’s electability,” examines the intriguing question of why Republican primary voters are about to deliver the nomination to a candidate who is manifestly one of the most unelectable of the 22 or however many it was who entered the race, when electability has always been an important criteria for voters in primaries. In the other, “Give us a king!,” Douthat discusses the increasing support in the American electorate for a strong presidency, or what he calls “executive branch Caesarism.” Money quote: “That clamor [for a strong executive] is loudest from the Trumpistas and their dear leader. Donald Trump is clearly running to be an American caudillo, not the president of a constitutional republic, and his entire campaign is a cult of personality in the style of (the pro-Trump) Vladimir Putin.”

3rd UPDATE: University of Nebraska political science profs John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse have a must-read post (May 2nd) on WaPo’s Monkey Cage blog, “A surprising number of Americans dislike how messy democracy is. They like Trump.” According to their data, the “surprising number of Americans [who] feel dismissive about such core features of democratic government as deliberation, compromise and decision-making by elected, accountable officials” are far more Republican than Democrat.

In this vein, Andrew Sullivan has a pessimistic, almost alarmist article in the May 2nd issue of New York magazine on—what else?—the Trump phenomenon: “Democracies end when they are too democratic: And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.” Money quote (one among a number):

And so those Democrats who are gleefully predicting a Clinton landslide in November need to both check their complacency and understand that the Trump question really isn’t a cause for partisan Schadenfreude anymore. It’s much more dangerous than that. Those still backing the demagogue of the left, Bernie Sanders, might want to reflect that their critique of Clinton’s experience and expertise — and their facile conflation of that with corruption — is only playing into Trump’s hands. That it will fall to Clinton to temper her party’s ambitions will be uncomfortable to watch, since her willingness to compromise and equivocate is precisely what many Americans find so distrustful. And yet she may soon be all we have left to counter the threat. She needs to grasp the lethality of her foe, moderate the kind of identity politics that unwittingly empowers him, make an unapologetic case that experience and moderation are not vices, address much more directly the anxieties of the white working class—and Democrats must listen.

And the concluding paragraph

For Trump is not just a wacky politician of the far right, or a riveting television spectacle, or a Twitter phenom and bizarre working-class hero. He is not just another candidate to be parsed and analyzed by TV pundits in the same breath as all the others. In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event. It’s long past time we started treating him as such.

Sullivan’s article is long—almost 8,000 words—but is worth the read.

4th UPDATE: Bruce Bartlett has reposted on his Facebook page his thoughts (here) on Trump’s candidacy dated last August 30th. They were prescient and worth rereading today.

Read Full Post »

The state of the race

cruz kasich trump clinton sanders

I vowed to myself earlier this month that I wouldn’t do another blog post on the US election campaign until the conventions in July, or unless something really big and important happened before then, as it has been clear since Super Tuesday III six weeks ago that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic party nominee and that, for the GOP, we probably wouldn’t know until Cleveland. But in the wake of the Acela primaries—and as various friends, fans, and family are asking what I think—an état des lieux is in order.

On the Democratic side, which is my principal interest, even hardline Bernie Bros now know that it will be Hillary. Good. I’ve been liking Bernie Sanders comme tout le monde but his act was beginning to wear thin. He was not wearing well. And I have not been alone in my sentiment on this. A number of initially well-disposed liberal-lefties have indeed modified their attitude toward him, one being lawyer-blogger Robin Alperstein, who laid it out in an overly long, occasionally excessive but nonetheless well-argued essay dated April 17th on how and why she was becoming anti-Bernie. And Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum, in a post yesterday, explained why he “never warmed up to Bernie Sanders.” He begins

With the Democratic primary basically over, I want to step back a bit and explain the big-picture reason that I never warmed up to Bernie Sanders. It’s not so much that he’s all that far to my left, nor that he’s been pretty skimpy on details about all the programs he proposes. That’s hardly uncommon in presidential campaigns. Rather, it’s the fact that I think he’s basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.

I mean this as a provocation—but I also mean it. So if you’re provoked, mission accomplished! Here’s my argument.

And here Drum’s argument is.

However valid the critiques, Bernie’s candidacy, it must be said, has been important and salutary. On this, the smart and insightful Duke University law professor Jedediah Purdy laid out the argument in an essay in Dissent dated April 21st, “A World to Make: Eleven Theses for the Bernie Sanders Generation.” The introduction:

The Sanders campaign has always been about more than Bernie Sanders. It has also been about more than winning states and delegates (although it has turned out to be a serious and remarkably effective effort at exactly that). The larger potential of the campaign is that a rising political generation has come to see it as a vehicle for doing something that, a few years ago, seemed impossible: advancing a vision of democratic political and economic life much more radical than that advanced by the Democratic Party of the 1990s and perhaps as expansive as the programs of the 1930s.

As for Purdy’s Eleven Theses for the Bernie Generation, they are

1. The economy is about power
2. Expertise is not legitimacy
3. You’re allowed to want economic security
4. You are more than human capital
5. Solidarity is different from hope
6. Democracy is more than voting
7. Not everything has to be earned
8. Equal treatment is not enough
9. We need a fight to make peace with the planet
10. We have in common what we decide to have in common
11. We have a world to make

Purdy elaborates on each thesis in the essay, with the last one being short and to the point:

Previous Democratic political campaigns have worked to navigate this world of inequality, insecurity, and so-called meritocracy, and to humanize it around the edges. The point, however, is to change it.

Some of us call that point democratic socialism.

Nice.

One of Bernie’s signature issues—which seems like radical pie-in-the-sky—is single-payer health insurance. But while there is no chance single-payer will be enacted in the US anytime soon—if ever—certain components of it can, so argues journalist Jonathan Cohn—who has written extensively on health care policy—in the Huff Post a week ago, and that Bernie and his movement—if it lasts—should focus on this after the election.

The imperative of radically reforming the existing order, not just humanizing it around the edges, is the implicit takeaway from two important articles in The New York Times, both dated April 27th. In one, “How the other fifth lives,” Thomas B. Edsall examines how “the self-segregation of a privileged fifth of the population is changing the American social order and the American political system.” The other article, by journalist Annie Lowrey, (rhetorically) asks “Where did the government jobs go?” Public sector employment has been the entrée into stable middle class life for large numbers of Americans—and particularly Afro-Americans—since the 1930s but, with privatization and budget slashing, those jobs have been disappearing, and with the consequence that increasing numbers of Americans—mainly Afro—have been tumbling out of the middle class. If that sizable slice of the population is to regain middle class status, those public sector jobs will have to come back, as the private sector is not going to do it.

Both these articles are highly recommended, particularly for certain friends who, blindsided by the Trump and Sanders phenomena, have confessed to having a “Pauline Kael moment” and admitted to living in a “Belmont bubble.” Pas moi.

To be continued (as there’s more)…

Read Full Post »

(photo credit: Ross D. Franklin/AP)

(photo credit: Ross D. Franklin/AP)

He’s not a fascist ideologically—as he has no ideology—but after reading this breathtaking piece in Politico (March 29th) by Trump biographer Michael d’Antonio, “The men who gave Trump his brutal worldview,” it is more than obvious—if one hadn’t picked up on it by now—that he is a fascist personally and temperamentally.

Pour mémoire, Trump is the Republican party front-runner for the presidential nomination. Crazy.

On the Republicans being crazy, another piece I just read is Jonathan Chait’s latest column (March 31st) in New York magazine, “New Antarctic melting study confirms voting Republican would trigger worldwide catastrophe.” Chait concludes with a thought I had while reading him here:

It sounds partisan to say, but it remains true: The fate of humanity rests to a very large degree on keeping the Republican Party out of power for as long as possible.

If anyone wishes to disagree with this—and defend the prevailing Republican party position on climate change while s/he is at it—I would like to hear his or her arguments. C’est tout c’que j’ai à dire.

Read Full Post »

2B31CD7800000578-0-image-a-66_1439008557194

[update below]

Of the many reasons why there is no chance—none whatever—that Donald Trump will be elected president of the United States, this is a big one. Even Republicans agree. Tons have been written on this subject over the past several months, of course, but the piece by Franklin Foer in Slate (March 24th), in case one missed it, “Donald Trump hates women: It’s the one position he’s never changed,” brings it all together. See also Michelle Goldberg’s March 24th Slate piece, “Trump’s attack on Heidi Cruz is the scummy low of a scummy campaign,” plus her March 11th “If Michelle Fields isn’t safe from Trump’s smear machine, no woman is.”

If one believes Trump to be an outlier in the Republican party in his general attitude toward women, see Amanda Marcotte’s post (March 25th) in Salon, “Rush loves catcalling: Limbaugh’s defense of street harassment shows why Donald Trump’s political rise was inevitable.” The lede: “Limbaugh bitterly defends sexual harassment, and shows why so many conservatives love Trump in doing so.”

Rush Limbaugh, as one knows, has been one of the most influential, high-profile personalities on the American right over the past twenty-five years, with Republican politicians lining up to kiss his ring and apologizing profusely after imprudently speaking out of turn and upsetting him. Now I have a question to those Republicans who consider Donald Trump to be some kind of space alien who has come out of nowhere to hijack their party: Please explain how Rush Limbaugh’s attitude toward women—and his grossness and vulgarity more generally—differs in any way, shape, or form from that of Trump? Just asking.

UPDATE: The subject of the latest column (March 25th) by the NYT’s Gail Collins is “Trump, Cruz, Kasich and the ladies.” Reagan, Bush 41, and Jack Kemp adviser Bruce Bartlett’s sobriquet for the GOP, “the wanker party,” is more apt than ever.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 241 other followers

%d bloggers like this: