Author Archives: jsh54

My Weekly Reader 22 August 2022.

Posted on by
Reply

            For obvious reasons, historians like to quote William Faulkner’s remark that “the past isn’t dead; it is not even past.”  It applies to so many contemporary situations.  Take the case of Xi Jinping’s China.  In some ways it resembles the Soviet Union.  It is a Communist Party dictatorship that persecutes both dissidents and minorities.  It remains a state-capitalist, rather than fully capitalist, economy.  The decision-making by its leader is so opaque as to make it a “black box.”  Outsiders straining to understand the future direction of China resort to what used to be called “Kremlinology.”  That is, they have to give a very close reading to the public pronouncements of Party leaders or their approved mouth-pieces.[1] 

China drew the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union and sought to fend off similar dangers.  First, it confirmed the Chinese leadership in its shift from a fully Communist economy toward a more capitalist economy integrated into the world market.  Second, it made the Communist Party very hostile to up-wellings of discontent.  Third, it left the United States as the sole super-power.  The diplomacy of balance between the United States, the Soviet Union, and China could not be sustained.  There was no counter-force to hold the Americans in check.  The ways in which America used that power has set the teeth of many foreigners on edge. 

            Under these circumstances, thirty years ago, Deng Xiaoping adopted the motto “hide capabilities and bide time.”[2]  In essence, China would build its power outward.  Its military would concentrate on strengthening China’s defenses against American power before developing the ability to contest American military power at a distance.  Its diplomacy would build influence in the Western Pacific/East Asia before extending China’s reach into more distant realms.  Its economic policy would build trade links in the same region, while using membership in the World Trade Organization and Most Favored Nation status to entangle American economic power in the trammels of its own “rules-based order.”[3]  China’s goal is something very like Imperial Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” 

            American mis-steps and mis-adventures facilitated a Chinese policy that seeks not merely to raise China, but to diminish the United States.  The disastrous invasion of Iraq, the financial crisis of 2008-2009, and the long political turmoil stemming from those events may lie at the root of the current sense among the American public that the country is on the wrong track in some way. 

            From this point of view, Xi Jinping is less turning from China’s long-term policy than he is taking the long-considered next step.  One thing that we still lack is a clear sense of how the Chinese leadership understands the Trump administration (as pure circus or as circus with substantive policies opposing China).  Another is how Americans—now apparently divided, pessimistic, and largely pre-occupied with domestic issues) will respond to Xi’s new phase.[4]

            Still, the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that you have a problem. 

[1] Rush Doshi, The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order (2021).  On Doshi, see: Rush Doshi – Fellow – The Brookings Institution | LinkedIn 

[2] Consider the motto of Nazi Germany’s National Political Academy: “Mehr sein als scheinen”—“be more than you appear to be.”  As good as anything offered by Polonius.  Without, you know, me endorsing Nazism. 

[3] Analogical thinking can be either productive or destructive depending on whether one chooses the appropriate analogy.  So it is worth people learning something about Gustav Stresemann (1878-1929) to figure out if he fits. 

[4] See the intelligent remarks by David Wilezol in his review, WSJ, 10 August 2021.   

Journal of Trump Studies vol 1 #2.

Posted on by
Reply

            Before and after Donald Trump’s election as president, the Justice Department was investigating him over allegations that the campaign had links to the Russian government.[1]  Indeed, the FBI team conducting the investigation told judges that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”  Trump fought back furiously against the allegations.  In May 2017, Trump’s dismissal of FBI Director James Comey backfired by leading to the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate the allegations. 

            In his first year of investigation, Mueller indicted the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) for having bought anti-Clinton ads on Facebook; indicted Russian military intelligence (GRU) for having hacked into Democratic Party internet servers and revealed the embarrassing secret text of Hilary Clinton’s well-paid speeches to industry groups; indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort for financial misconduct while working in Ukraine in the years before he joined the Trump campaign; and obtained a guilty plea from former campaign aid George Papadopoulos for having lied to investigators.  What they failed to do was to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign [had] coordinated with Russia…” 

            Then, in November 2017, came a ray of hope.  White House Counsel Donald McGahn told investigators that Trump had ordered him to fire Mueller.  Although McGahn had refused and had talked down the president, perhaps this would serve to charge Trump with obstruction of justice?  Mueller persuaded Trump to be interviewed in January 2018, but Trump refused to follow through.  Mueller rejected the option of issuing a subpoena to compel his testimony. 

            Nor did Mueller try to run down Trump’s alleged financial ties to Russia, or try to get his tax returns, or investigate his personal finances.  In May 2018, his people told the White House that Trump would not be indicted.  “Mueller’s caution and restraint remain an enigma.” 

            Actually, they don’t.  Robert Mueller was a highly experienced prosecutor and former Director of the FBI.  Across a lifetime of distinguished public service, the law has been his guide.            “[W]hat do you do when you uncover acts that don’t explicitly violate the law but that clearly seem wrong?”  Katie Benner identifies this as the recurring stumbling-block of the Mueller investigation.  In her view, Jeffrey Toobin “rightly argues that the investigation was an utter political failure.” 

For Mueller apparently, if not for Trump’s opponents, the investigation was a judicial inquiry, not a political act.  For Mueller apparently, if not for Trump’s opponents, you can’t charge people with crimes or go on fishing expeditions in hopes of finding crimes just because you think someone is a “narcissistic scoundrel.” 

            Benner makes no mention of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation that was released in December 2019.  That report began the official discrediting of the “Steele Dossier” which had under-pinned the conspiracy belief of the Democrats. 

            Investigations continue and may turn up some crime that can be proved.  Until then, while all right-thinking people despise Donald Trump, just being Donald Trump isn’t a crime. 

[1] Katie Benner, “How Mueller Failed,” (review of Jeffrey Toobin, True Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Investigation of Donald Trump (2020)), NYTBR, 23 August 2020. 

Playing with Paste.

Posted on by
Reply

            Will the newly-passed “Inflation Reduction Act” actually reduce inflation?  No, it will not.[1]  First, it does nothing to reduce inflation now and isn’t even intended to do so.  Over the course of a decade it will reduce budget deficits by about $300 billion.  Excess money, compounded by supply chain problems and delays in restarting oil refining, are what drives the inflation we have.  The Fed is tightening interest rates to reduce that inflation.  Most of Inflation Reduction Act’s deficit reduction will come between 2027 and 2031.  The Inflation Reduction Act is just a time-sensitive label plastered onto a bill dealing with other matters.[2] 

Second, in the last year Congress has passed bills[3] that increase deficits over the next decade by about $614 billion in the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).[4]  As they taught us in elementary school, “612 take away 300 leaves 312.”  Is that reality dangerously inflationary?  No it is not.  In 2021, US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell just short of $23 trillion.[5]  Spread over a decade, the $312 billion amounts to about 0.1 percent of GDP. 

So, is it just pretty much a wash given the size of the American economy?  Not in the eyes of conservative critics.[6]  The abandonment of the “small government” Reagan Revolution since the start of this century has renewed the expansion of government programs without seriously expanding the taxation to pay for it.[7]  Businesses have one responsibility: to make a profit for their owners within the law.  For them, economic efficiency is—or should be—a little tin god.  However, governments act from a complex of motives, not all of them purely economic.  National security is one such imperative.  A Navy Carrier Strike Group is a big, complex, and expensive operation.[8]  Now, nobody needs a Carrier Strike Group.  Until they do.  Then they need it in a hurry, not in ten years’ time.  The United States Navy has eleven of them.  Efficient?  No way in Hell.  Something to think about if you’re Xi Jinping?  You betcha’.  The same rationale applies to things like climate change. 

In one sense, a question becomes how much we want the inefficient-by-necessity federal government expanding into new areas to shape production and consumption.[9]  Eventually, over time, the addition and expansion of programs with subsidies, regulations, and the impact of lobbyists can slow the economy.  The underlying economy has provided much of what makes America different from other places.  It is stronger, of course, than other states and able to influence change.  It also has—mostly–provided the chance for individual improvement. 

[1] Greg Ip, “Fiscal Agenda Doesn’t Help With Inflation,” WSJ, 12 August 2022. 

[2] See: The treachery of images (This is not a pipe), 1928 – 1929 – Rene Magritte – WikiArt.org 

[3] Either in a bipartisan fashion or through reconciliation. 

[4] $278 billion for the veterans affected by toxic “burn pits”; $257 billion for the infrastructure bill; and $79 billion for the semi-conductor aid bill.  That doesn’t mean that these things aren’t worth doing.  Just means that we are going to put a big chunk of the cost on the credit card. 

[5] United States (USA) GDP – Gross Domestic Product 2022 | countryeconomy.com 

[6] Conservatives are the only critics of these policies.  Back in the 2020 elections season, Progressives talked openly of “running the economy hot” to achieve their social policy goals.  Our current experience is what they meant. 

[7] See: A Time of Change. | waroftheworldblog  OK, citing myself.  How self-reverential. 

[8] See: Carrier battle group – Wikipedia 

[9] See: Apoorva Mandavilli, “States Blame Federal Mix-Ups As Monkeypox Shots Are Lost,” NYT, 16 August 2022; David Fahrenthold, “Pandemic Fraud Claimed Billions Meant for Relief,” NYT, 17 August 2022.  Front page stories in the Times two days running for pity’s sake. 

With Astonishing Suddenness.

Posted on by
Reply

            Walter Russell Mead is a political scientist who writes for the Wall Street Journal; not a journalist whose idea of the “long-term” is the next presidential election.  Mead’s chief academic interest lies in international relations and American foreign policy.[1]  Like the historian Paul Kennedy,[2] Mead emphasizes the underlying bases of national power as well as the will and wisdom involved in using that power.  For him, economic dynamism, innovation, world trade in a globalized economy, and strong multi-faceted alliances all form the building blocks of strength. 

For some time, he has been critical of the direction of China’s policies foreign and domestic, and of America’s China policy.  In February 2020, Mead wrote a column very much in this vein for the Wall Street Journal.  An editor titled it “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia.”  The government of China denounced the title as racist and demanded an apology.  Various American academics attacked the article as insensitive and reinforcing stereotypes.[3]  The Wall Street Journal refused to apologize.[4]  In March 2020, China expelled three WSJ journalists.  Rupert Murdoch, the feisty owner of the Journal (and many other things) has had the paper beating the tar out of the Chinese government ever since. 

            Mead doesn’t respond well to authoritarian-figures.  He penetrates to the heart of China’s current problem.  At least since the beginning of this century, China has used a part of its great economic power to develop great military power.  The instinct of Xi Jinping (and perhaps the whole leadership group) has been to use China’s strength to threaten its neighbors, rather than to use its power to entice.   Having re-taken Hong Kong and stifled freedom there, Xi now is fixed on Taiwan.  China is the largest single market for Taiwan’s exports.[5]  Various impediments to trade now can be expected as China seeks to make the Taiwanese and its allies recognize their dependence.  The naval exercises, air force flights into Taiwanese airspace, and the missiles were hardly necessary as a riposte to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit.  It just shows how Xi instinctively responds to a challenge. 

Mead is equally critical of democratic leaders who fail to sustain the foundations of their own nations.  Thus, he lashes “the strategic passivity and incompetence that blinded a generation of American political leaders to the growing threat of great-power war in the western Pacific.”[6]  In particular, “the U.S. and its allies allowed their overwhelming military superiority in the region to fade slowly away.”  (There’s a little “if they had only listened to me” in this.)    

One pressing question is whether American leaders can focus the American people on the dangers at hand in time.  Our domestic problems and divisions are so dauting.  Or, even more grimly, is there still time, at least before we have to re-run the Cuban Missiles Crisis? 

[1] See: Walter Russell Mead – Wikipedia 

[2] See: Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987) and Preparing for the 21st Century (1993). 

[3] The phrase “Sick Man of…” originated with the Russian tsar Nicholas I in 1852.  He labeled the Ottoman Empire “the sick man of Europe” because it was disintegrating through remarkably bad government and economic stagnation.”  The term came into widespread use.  In 1863 the phrase “sick man of Asia” got applied to the equally rotten Qing dynasty.  The term never had the connotation of deriding the people who lived in these failing states.  Xi Jinping probably knew exactly what Mead meant; his American critics probably didn’t because they were in fields like ethnic studies rather than history. 

[4] “Refused to apologize” as in Barry Lyndon – The Duel – YouTube Start at 1:17 if you want to cut to the chase. 

[5] Some 42 percent of Taiwan’s exports go to the mainland, another 15 percent to the United States. 

[6] Walter Russell Mead, “A Costly Passivity Toward China,” WSJ, 9 August 2022. 

A Time of Change.

Posted on by
1

            A history of government intervention in the economy might run something like the following.  “Liberal” (small government, free markets, free enterprise, free trade, and devil-take-the-hindmost) economics dominated the world during the 19th Century.  Then, from 1914 to 1945, a series of crises made this system intolerable to most in a democratic age.  All advanced countries witnessed a dramatic expansion of government power and responsibility.  From 1945 to 1980, a new system developed in which government managed the broad performance of the economy and insured against various individual catastrophes, while leaving markets free to do what they do best.  Along the way, however, the state regulated and taxed more and more, while failing to master new problems.  In the 1980s and 1990s, ideas and political interests came together to rebalance the relationship between governments and markets.  Thatcherism, Reaganism, and Monetarism culminated in Britain’s “New Labor” and Bill Clinton’s “the era of big government is over.” 

            That didn’t last long.[1]  It ran counter to popular expectations whenever a crisis hit.  The share of Americans who favored a more active problem-solving state rose from 32 percent in 1995 to 57 percent in 2020.  The government responded to new problems by jettisoning the new conventional wisdom.  On the one hand, the 21st Century began with a series of ever-greater economic crises.  First came the bursting of the “tech bubble” almost the instant Clinton was out of the White House; then the bursting of the “housing bubble” and a huge financial crisis less than a decade later; and then the covid pandemic which derailed much of the world economy a decade after that.  The government repeatedly flooded the economy with money (loans, credits) to stave off recession, bankruptcies, and high unemployment. 

On the other hand, the increasing salience of more fundamental problems of American society and economy also pushed for bigger government.[2]  The Obama administration expanded the role of government by passing the Affordable Care Act in health care and pushing through a rationalization of the automobile industry.  The rise of China as an economic rival led the Trump administration to impose, and the Biden administration to maintain, tariffs.  The Trump administration spent prodigiously to pay for the development of Covid vaccines, while the Biden administration has added $280 billion of funding for the semi-conductor industry.  Climate change has elicited a large government intervention ($234 billion) in the form of tax credits for “green” energy generation and consumption (electric vehicles).[3]  Similarly, the effort to roll-back the regulation-writing state also has gone by the boards.  The annual average of “economically significant new regulations” has risen from 20 under Reagan; to 45 under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II; to the low 60s under Obama and Trump, to the high 60s under Biden. 

Industrial policy always turns into industrial politics.  Established industries defend themselves against threatening new-comers.  They have the deep pockets to lobby politicians for what they want.  Political intervention can increase inefficiencies.  “We’re going to have bad [economic] growth” warns one critic.  Security and freedom can be antagonists. 

[1] Jon Hilsenrath, “Recent Legislation Expands Role of Government in Private Markets,” WSJ, 13-14 August 2022. 

[2] I’m a fool not to label the financial services industry as a “fundamental problem.” 

[3] The use of tax credits forms part of another longer pattern.  Adjusted for inflation, tax credits have risen from $729 billion in 1996 to $1.4 trillion in 2021. 

The Journal of Trump Studies v 1 #1.

Posted on by
Reply

            It’s bad enough that there are Republicans at all.  It’s worse still that—inexplicably except through gerrymandering and voter suppression—they win so many elections.[1]  It’s just beyond belief that Donald Trump could win the White House in 2016 thanks merely to the antiquated Electoral College clause in the Constitution; and that he could survive repeated investigations that some how failed to turn up evidence of wrong-doing by the Wrong-Doer in Chief.[2]  But what really smokes my ham is that the whole Republican elite[3] rallied to the elected President merely because he gave them the means to achieve their long-term goals. 

Some people, scummy Republican word-smiths mostly, would argue that these goals were to put a stop to government by Executive-branch rule-writing, end the making of international commitments by executive agreements that didn’t have to be submitted to the Senate for ratification, and to pack the Federal courts for a generation to come with judges who had been curry-combed by the Federalist Society.  In their analysis, beginning in Summer 2016, mainstream Republicans[4] faced a choice between accepting or rejecting an alliance with the “MAGA true-believers.”  They could have renounced Trump and all his works and his pomps.  They could have urged Republican voters to sit out the election, even if they didn’t vote for the better candidate.[5]  Faced with the daunting challenge of having fielded two losers in races against Barack Obama and now facing the formidable Hilary Clinton, they opted for a “big tent.” 

Then they were “shocked, shocked to discover” that clowns came with the circus.  Rather than recoiling in horror at the “pure and feral rascal,” they decided to try to hem-in Orange Man with adults.  This failed of course.  Any Democrat could have told them that it would.  Once elected, he went on a tear.  The response of the Republican elite?  “It was always rationalization followed by capitulation and then full surrender.”[6]  Meanwhile, they focused on getting their judges and tax cuts

            The truth is, in my opinion,[7] that their long-term goals are to live in Washington, have a nice house, wear excellent suits, and play a lot of golf.  In the words of journalist Mark Leibovich, they are “saps and weaklings” and “careerists who capitulated to Trumpism to preserve their livelihoods.”   

Happily, a few principled Republicans redeemed themselves.[8]  At least until the danger of Trump has disappeared and their basic commitment to Evil can be acknowledged once again. 

[1] Note to self: how do you gerrymander a Senatorial or Presidential election?  Must ask Chuck. 

[2] I tried WOTUS, WdOTUS, and WDOTUS.  Just didn’t seem to work.  Sigh. 

[3] Note to self, “Republican elite” is redundant because only Republicans have an elite.  Democratic “politicians, leaders, fixers and influence-peddlers,” along with community-organizers, activists, and spiritual advisers are all simply “doing the People’s business.”  Further note to self: edit this before posting.  In Mario Puzo, The Godfather, one of Don Corleone’s henchmen reflects that “doing the business” is a metaphor used both for murder and sex. 

[4] “Normies” as the Proud Boys et al called them. 

[5] Like all those Alabama Republicans who sat out the election between Roy Moore and Doug Jones. 

[6] Mark Leibovich, Thank You for Your Servitude: Donald Trump’s Washington and the Price of Submission (2022).  There’s an admiring review by Geoffrey Kabaservice, NYTBR, 7 August 2022.  Coincidentally, Kabaservice wrote Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party (2013). 

[7] “And I am unanimous in this”—Mrs. Slocombe (Molly Sugden) in “Are You Being Served?” many times between 1972 and 1985.    

[8] The Graceful Loser, Liz Vader, and the Maverick. 

The AK-47 of Missiles.

Posted on by
Reply

            Before and during the Second World War, Germany made dramatic advances in rocketry and missiles.  At the end of the war, the Americans, British, and Soviets grabbed up as many German scientists, technicians, and samples as they could lay hands upon.  In the competition of the Cold War the military rocket programs of all three advanced by leaps and bounds.  All passed beyond German capabilities by the late 1940s. 

            By 1951, the Soviet Union had developed nuclear weapons.  The strategic question became how to use these weapons in war.  The German V-2 had a flying range of 200 miles.  Soviet missiles based on the V-2 would have to be fired from western East Germany and Czechoslovakia to bring Western Europe under fire.  In fixed firing position, they would be highly vulnerable to air attack; in a Red Army advance, they would need to follow the frontline forward.  Thus, mobile launchers offered the best solution.  The V-2 launchers had been very cumbersome, so something more svelte would be welcomed.[1] 

            In 1951, the Soviet high command issued a requirement for a V-2, but half as big.  By mid-1955, the new missiles were starting to become available.  Western intelligence agencies that figured out that the missiles were manufactured at the SKB-385 factory in Chelyabinsk oblast designated the new weapon as the SS-1B, and—I’m guessing–called it the Scud A.  In any event, it could carry a nuclear warhead, but not very far: maximum range was 100 miles. 

            With this weapon in hand, the Soviets then got to work on a more robust successor.  By 1964, the SS-1C Scud B had begun to enter service.  It had double the range (c. 180 miles), much greater accuracy, and could be armed with a wide range of warheads for varied purposes.  Over the years, the Soviets manufactured 7,000 Scud-Bs. 

            The Soviets transferred Scuds to clients.  As part of their build-up of Egyptian forces in the early 1970s, the Soviets transferred some Scud-Bs for use against Israeli forces.  Beginning in 1974 and continuing to 1988, the Soviet Union transferred over 800 Scud-Bs to Iraq. 

            Recipient countries then transferred them elsewhere.  In 1979 or 1980, the Egyptians transferred a Scud-B to North Korea.  The North Koreans then figured out how to make them for themselves.  They tweaked the original design to improvement it, then called their missile the Hwasong-5. 

            In 1985, North Korea transferred to Iran perhaps 100 Hwasong-5s.  The Iranians then did the same reverse-engineering as had done the North Koreans.  They called their missile the Shahab-1. 

            In 1989, the Soviets transferred a large number of Scud-Bs to their client-state in Afghanistan. 

            Reverse-engineering is an education in itself.  It enhances the technical capabilities of the people doing the work.  If you put smart people to work, they start having ideas of their own.  As a result, both North Korea and Iran have developed more highly capable successor generations of the original Scud-B.  These, too, have been transferred. 

            So far, the AK 47 has killed more people in Third World Wars than has the Scud.  So far. 

[1] Kyle Mizokami, “How Soviet SCUD Missile Launchers Took the World By Storm,” The National Interest, 21 December 2021 How Soviet SCUD Missile Launchers Took the World By Storm | The National Interest; Sergio Pecanha, “Concerned About North Korea?  The List of Missile Powers Keeps Growing,” NYT,11 February 2018. 

The Gaza Fighting.

Posted on by
Reply

            In 1979, Egyptian Islamists formed the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ).  The EIJ wanted to overthrow the Egyptian dictatorship and set up an Islamist regime.  The EIJ included a faction of Palestinians living in exile.  In 1981 the EIJ participated in the assassination of Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat.  Many EIJ members fled the subsequent repression, while the Palestinians were expelled to Gaza.  They re-branded themselves as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).  PIJ aims at the destruction of the state of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state encompassing all of pre-partition Palestine.   

            By the late 1980s, PIJ had moved into the orbit of Iran through its client in Lebanon, Hezbollah.  Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have opposed PIJ.  Between 1987 and 2002, PIJ claimed 17 attacks (mostly bombings and ambushes of public transport buses); from 2002 and 2014, PIJ claimed 14 attacks (mostly bombings of public places). 

Mid-stream in the second period of PIJ attacks, another, larger Islamist movement, Hamas, won the Palestinian elections.  Hamas evicted the defeated Fatah-led faction from Gaza.  Fatah then evicted Hamas from government positions in the West Bank.  Since then, Hamas and PIJ have maintained an uneasy relationship, competing for advantage within Gaza while co-operating against Israel. 

The co-operative stance of the two parties may be eroding.[1]  On the one hand, the on-going Muslim civil war between Shi’ite and Sunni forces people to take sides.  Hamas is a Sunni Islamist movement.  Iran and Hezbollah are Shi’ite.  Since 2014, Iran has greatly increased its financial and arms support to PIJ, leading to a growing role for PIJ in Gaza and the West Bank. 

On the other hand, the responsibilities of governing Gaza may be sapping the intransigence of Hamas.  The government led until recently by Benjamin Netanyahu slammed tight economic constraints on Gaza in response to Hamas attacks.  It repeatedly pounded the living daylights out of Gaza in retaliation for rocket attacks.  Those restrictions–generally supported by Egypt, so no one is coming to help the Gazans–have made life in Gaza miserable for the two million people trapped there.  Since the fall of Netanyahu, Israel has modified its policy.  It has eased restrictions on imports and exports.[2]  It has also offered work-permits for 14,000 people.  It has dangled the possibility of raising the number of permits to 20,000 under the right security conditions.[3]  With a 50 percent unemployment rate in Gaza, Hamas may see some benefit in greater co-operation.  As more and more Sunni Arab states normalize relations with Israel, it must be occurring to many Islamists that the “Jewish entity” isn’t going anywhere. 

That is one way of understanding the recent outbreak of fighting in Gaza.  In April and May 2022, PIJ launched a new round of attacks inside Israel.  Israel responded with arrests of PIJ leaders on the West Bank.  PIJ countered with rocket attacks directed at Israel.  Israel countered with attacks on PIJ members in Gaza.  In all this, Hamas did not involve itself in the fighting and Israel did not target any Hamas sites.  The West Bank government did not interfere with arrests. 

Slowly, radicals may be getting shoved to the margins.  Or perhaps not. 

[1] See: Isabel Kershner, “After Three-Day Conflict In Gaza, Cease-Fire Holds,” NYT, 9 August 2022. 

[2] Not necessarily by a lot.  The recent fighting led to a cut-off of imports for a week.  By the end of that time, Gaza was almost out of fuel for its electric generators. 

[3] The limits on Arab workers in Israel sprang from the Arab terrorism, especially suicide bombings, of past times. 

The Taiwan Clock.

Posted on by
Reply

            For much of the Thirties, some foreign observers of Germany posited that “Nazis” could be best understood as an umbrella term under which gathered “radicals” and “moderates.” Adolf Hitler arbitrated their differences while keeping a wary eye on what traditional elites would tolerate.  Eventually, it became apparent that Hitler utterly dominated German policy.[1]  It seems apparent that Xi Jinping utterly dominates Chinese policy.  Moreover, he intends to continue doing so for the foreseeable future. 

            Taiwan now garners close attention.  The island had long been a province of historical China.  In 1895, a Westernizing Japan had seized the island as a prize of war with the decaying Qing dynasty.  Japan held Taiwan until its own defeat in 1945.  Then China, in the form of the Kuomintang (KMT) government of the Republic of China, regained possession.  Having regained the island province, the KMT then lost the mainland to the Communists by 1949.  Taiwan became the “last ditch” of the KMT.  The Korean War (1950-1953) brought the United States squarely in opposition to the Communist Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) and in support of the defeated KMT.  The Americans built a chain of strong societies around their chief Asian enemy.  Over time, these American allies became prosperous and democratized their governments.  Then, the Nixon Administration’s opening to China compelled all parties to live with a situation of “strategic ambiguity.”  China maintained its claim to Taiwan, but did nothing to make good on it.  The United States acknowledged China’s claim on Taiwan, so long as Beijing did nothing to make good on it.  Taiwan asserted its independence while trying hard not to provoke China.  In short, all agreed to kick the can down the road.[2] 

            The PRC has never–formally or informally–accepted the weakening of central authority over peripheral areas or the loss of traditional Chinese territory to foreign imperialists.  Hence, both Tibet and Xinjiang have been heavily repressed.  Hence, China has been determined to recover Hong Kong and Macao.  Taiwan hits both those buttons. 

            These efforts have greatly intensified under Xi Jinping.[3]  Under his direction, China asserted its claims over the seaways and airways of the South and East China Seas.  Under his direction, China ruptured its agreement with Britain on the special status of Hong Kong. 

China’s support for Russia during its attack on the once-Russian Ukraine shows where Xi’s intentions lie.  The Russo-Ukraine War may have created an opportunity to speed up the pace of recovering Taiwan for China.  In June 2022, Xi denounced the very idea of the Taiwan Strait as an international waterway.  China’s harassing air and naval operations led President Joe Biden to state that the United States will defend Taiwan if it is attacked. 

Nothing daunted, Xi seized upon the visit to Taiwan by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to order military operations around Taiwan.  These operations threaten not only Taiwan, but also the United States and its other Asian allies.  Is the clock ticking down? 

[1] The tedious historical novel by Robert Harris, Munich (2017) nevertheless asks the fascinating question “What would Western leaders have done at Munich in 1938 if they had known about the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937?”  That record of a conference of Nazi leaders made it clear first, that Hitler had a profound grasp of European politics and, second, that he was bent on war in the near future, if not immediately. 

[2] Mostly.  In the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered a show of naval force to cool Chinese assertiveness. 

[3] Tiffany May and Mike Ivey, “A Drumbeat of Pressure on Taiwan, Explained,” NYT, 9 August 2022. 

Biden on a Roll, with Mayo.

Posted on by
Reply

            The New York Times crows that “Now Biden Is on a Roll…. Policy Paralysis Ends With Midterms Near.”[1]  Deeper in the paper, cooler heads offer a more serious appraisal.[2] 

            President Joe Biden’s original tax plan called for undoing the tax cuts passed in 2017 during the administration of President Donald Trump.  Corporations and high-income earners would bear the brunt of plans to reap an additional $1.5 trillion in revenue.  Most of this fell by the wayside.  The final bill set a minimum 15 percent tax on corporations and a just-for-show 1 percent tax on stock buy-backs by companies. 

President Biden’s original social policy program sought to greatly expand federal spending to support families at either end of the life spectrum.  It proposed federal paid family and medical leave, expanded child-care, and home care (for aging adults).  It also hoped to spend a lot on financial aid for college students.   The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives added money to extend the payments to families with children which had been introduced during the Covid emergency.  The total cost of these programs was designed to meet the demands of “reconciliation” legislation.  It came in at $2.2 trillion.  “Need” would not factor in eligibility for most of these programs.  The entire package had to be scrapped. 

            President Biden’s original climate proposals were intended to reduce emissions of green-house gases by 50 percent below the 2005 levels by 2030.  Administration plans included limits on off-shore drilling for oil and gas in order to limit the availability[3] of carbon-based fuels; plans to close coal and gas-fueled power generation plants; and plans to encourage individual and corporate consumers to shift toward “renewable” energy sources (solar, wind).  In November 2021, the House of Representatives passed a bill allocating $555 billion to support these proposals.  The law allocates less than $400 billion. 

            President Biden’s original medical proposal sought to expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing care.  It also sought to beef-up the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed during the administration of President Barack Obama.  In particular, it planned to expand subsidies for insurance premiums under the ACA and to enroll an additional four million people in Medicaid.[4]  In the end, the program will extend the current subsidies for the ACA premiums for three years (2023-2025).  In addition, Medicare has been granted a limited right to negotiate on drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.  The expansion of Medicare has been dropped. 

            What went wrong?  The Constitution, that’s what.  Laws must pass both houses of Congress, then be signed by the President.  The Democrats have a small, but real, majority in the House of Representatives.  The Senate is divided 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting a deciding vote.  Senate rules allow this sort of majority to operate only on “reconciliation” votes.  Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema gave Republicans the majority in the Senate until they got the changes they wanted.  See: sausage-making. 

[1] Peter Baker, NYT, 9 August 2022, page 1, above the fold.  The story is labeled “News Analysis,” but it more hopeful speculation.  Not to be mean, but perhaps they might call the paper the “New Yorkie Times”?  See: Yorkshire Terrier – Wikipedia 

[2] Emily Cochrane, “Path of a Shrunken Bill: From Grand Ideals to Compromise,” NYT, 9 August 2022. 

[3] Thus artificially raising the price.  We could just tax carbon, but Americans love their cars and air conditioning. 

[4] The ACA had tried to coerce states into expanding Medicaid to provide coverage for poor people.  The Supreme Court had clapped a stopper on this, so a bunch of Republican states had refused to expand Medicaid.