Category Archives: Uncategorized

Learning About Kamala Harris.

Posted on by
Reply

            What is Kamala Harris’s approach to the economy?  She holds a BA in Economics from Howard and her father taught Economics at Stanford.  The basic issues must not be strange to her.  Still, figuring out her own positions requires reading the tea leaves. 

For four years, Harris has followed the Biden administration’s economic policy in “lockstep.”[1]  Any Vice President would do the same.  Former President Biden presided over a period of economic growth, rising employment, and rising real wages.  Harris has supported his calls for higher taxes on corporations and on individuals earning at least $400,000, while cutting them for lower income groups.  In particular, they have called for maintaining many of the 2017 Trump tax cuts as they effect lower incomes while raising taxes on upper incomes. 

Harris is lumbered with the inflation and high interest-rates of recent years.  Consumer prices have risen 19.5 percent since December 2020.  House prices and rents are currently very high.  Harris has blamed the price rises, in part, on corporate profiteering.[2]  

Harris likes tax “credits.”  Senator Harris proposed a sort of universal basic income for lower-income earners.  It would have paid $3,000 a month to individuals and $6,000 for married couples.[3]  It would have operated through a tax credit.  In 2021, the Democrats pushed through a temporary increase in the child tax credit and an earned income tax credit for childless workers.  Those measures soon expired, but Democrats (including Harris) have supported their revival.  Harris also proposed a Rent Relief Act.  It would have provided a tax credit to renters who earn $100,000 or less and who spend a minimum of 30 percent of their income on rent.  Harris opposed the 2017 tax cuts pushed through by the Trump administration; in 2020, while running for president, Harris called for the full repeal of those tax cuts.  In 2019, she said that she would not have voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement.  She did vote against the renegotiated version during the Trump administration. 

            Harris may have little interest in or grasp of national economic policy.  She reportedly made little contribution to either the economic legislation of the early administration nor to the urgent debates over a response to the painful inflation that the legislation helped to ignite.  To the extent that she did engage, it was with the “human interest” perspective on the issues.  “[H]ow certain policies affect workers and families at a personal level…”  Harris vigorously supported child tax credits, as well as other pro-family and child policies.  The latter could not garner enough support among Senate Democrats to be included in legislation.  Harris also pushed hard to expand access to capital provided by banks to small businesses and communities of color. 

            She has argued against medical debt impinging on credit ratings, setting this in parallel to the Biden administrations attempts to cancel student loan debts. 

Harris is much more of a micro-economy person than a macro-economy person.  If Harris becomes president, She’ll need a good Treasury Secretary.  They all do. 

[1] Jon Kamp, Richard Rubin, and Justin Lahart, “Harris’s Past Hints At Economic Policy,” WSJ, 25 July 2024, and Jim Tankersley, Jeanna Smialek, and Ana Swanson, “Harris’s Views on Economics Are Seen as Being Mostly in Line With Current Policy,” NYT, 25 July 2024.. 

[2] Economist NOT on the far-left blame high demand intersecting limited supply. 

[3] So like Social Security for people of working age?  It seems likely that the payments would increase with the passage of time. 

The Woes of China 2.

Posted on by
1

            China scares people elsewhere, but not only for the reasons that Zi Jinping desires.[1]  In recent decades, infrastructure projects powered much of China’s economic growth.  Now there is a fear that China’s economy will not escape an avalanche of debt incurred to finance those projects.  As part of its effort to build infrastructure, the government centralized the financing of local development and infrastructure schemes.  Yet the central government wanted cities to take the lead in this effort.  Perhaps the theory was that local people know better than a remote bank what opportunities exist in their communities.  At the same time, the central government had traditionally kept a tight leash on borrowing by cities in the form of borrowing limits.  So, where would the money come from if the cities could not issue many more bonds? 

            The solution came through cities borrowing from state-owned Local Government Financing Vehicles (LGFVs).  The LGFVs may be state-owned, but they keep their own set of books.  These are separate from the central government’s books.  The LGFVs borrowed money from state-owned Chinese banks, then re-lent it to local governments all over the country.  The banks lending the money seem to have believed that the government would never let the cities or the LGVFs default because it would wreak havoc on the country’s financial system. 

The trouble is that those local governments did not always know what kinds of real opportunities existed, or they derived income from selling public lands to developers, or they didn’t care so long as they could keep their locals employed.[2]  In any case, the result appeared in massive over-building relative to real demand.  Since 2022, China’s real estate market has been slipping downward. 

            How much money is involved?  It’s hard to tell for sure.  Economists estimate that it is between $7 trillion and $11 trillion.  (For comparison’s sake, the debt of the Chinese national government is estimated to be $4-5 trillion.)  A big chunk of that debt—around $800 billion–is in the shadow of default.  

            There seems to be a fair amount of mutual back-scratching: many LGFVs guarantee the debts of other LGFVs even when both are heavily indebted; and some park their own assets with other LGFVs when their financial stability is being assessed.[3]  Now central government officials are showing up in localities carrying a lot of debt.  They are demanding to know “What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is going on here?”[4]  There mere presence seems to be paralyzing projects already under way. 

            “Well, let them go bankrupt: serve them right and teach everybody a good lesson,” would say theorists of capitalism.  The thing is that another capitalist slogan holds that “Small debts are a problem for the borrower; big debts are a problem for the lender.”  If the local governments default, then either the government has to step in with a bail-out or the banks have to write-down the loans.  In the latter case, in particular, the result would be a tightening of credit throughout the economy.  That might be hard to contain. 

[1] Brian Spegele and Rebecca Feng, “Trillions in Hidden Debt Threaten China,” WSJ, 15 July 2024. 

[2] One local government official has been arrested and charged with spending the borrowed money on “political vanity projects.” 

[3] See: The Sting (1973) – Paul Newman card trick – YouTube 

[4] Blazing Saddles ( Kansas City Faggots ) (youtube.com) 

Jackson and Jacksonians.

Posted on by
Reply

            Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) served as the seventh President of the United States (1829-1837).  He was, quite possibly, the worst president we’ve ever had.  His hatred of “elites” and desire to please the “common man” in all things led him to destroy the Second Bank of the United States.  This resulted in unregulated and irresponsible lending, massive bank failures leading to the “crisis of ’37,” and a prolonged depression.  He believed the president (well, himself), rather than the Supreme Court, to be the final arbiter of what laws were “constitutional.”  This belief, along with his own deep hostility to non-whites, led him to refuse to enforce the Supreme Court decision overturning the seizure of lands from Indian tribes by Southern states.  This, in turn, led to the “Trail of Tears.”  He appointed his lieutenant in legal matters, Roger B. Taney, to the Supreme Court when John Marshall croaked.  Taney later wrote the Dred Scott Decision.  With Thomas Jefferson, Jackson is regarded as the founder of the Democratic Party and the party annually held a “Jefferson-Jackson Day” fund raising gala.  In recent years, the title of the event has been molting because of the whole unfortunate slave-owners thing.  Not everyone sees Jackson in this light.[1] 

            Going on sixty years ago, the historian Marvin “Bud” Meyers analyzed what he called the “Jacksonian Persuasion.”[2]  Jacksonianism wasn’t an elaborate or formal ideology.  Rather, it was a set of often conflicting beliefs among ordinary people.  The Jacksonians idealized a vision of a society that was slipping away as laissez-faire capitalism advanced.  Change disrupted their lives, often for the worse over the short-run.  It bore a host of costs: not only economic, but also political, social and cultural.  It was full of ethical challenges or divergences from the way things had always been done.  At the same time, many of the Jacksonians embraced the new opportunities.  This created a psychological tension.  They blamed the urban elites—especially bankers and industrialists—for the changes.  The elites were characterized by the “[d]efective morals, habits, and character [that] are nurtured in the trades which seek wealth without labor, employing the stratagems of speculative maneuver, privilege grabbing, and monetary manipulation.”[3]  Eventually, other approaches overtook the Jacksonian Persuasion.  It died. 

            Not dead, just sleeping.  Decades of elite mismanagement have revived Jacksonianism.  Today’s “Jacksonian Persuasion” is anti-elitist, in both politics and the military.  It deeply distrusts big business, especially Big Tech.  They think international organizations are a joke, as is spreading democracy into places where it has not already developed naturally.  But they think that China is a real and great danger and they believe in a strong defense.  More than just having a strong military, the United States should use its power without hesitation when the country is actually threatened.  They like and admire strong leaders pursuing the national interest, even when they don’t fully agree with the policy.  (JMO, but they also like sticking their thumb in the eye of the “elites” just to watch the reaction.)   

            Today, Donald Trump is the leader of the “Jacksonian Persuasion.”[4] 

[1] See Robert V. Remini’s three-volume biography of Jackson (1977-1984), if you’ve got the time.  It is highly esteemed and not just a white-wash. 

[2] Marvin Meyers, The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief (1957). 

[3] Meyers, Jacksonian Persuasion, p. 22.

[4] Walter Russell Mead, “America’s Jacksonian Turn,” WSJ, 15 July 2024. 

China and Demography.

Posted on by
Reply

            Beginning in the 1960s, China’s population began to rise sharply.  By the 1970s, China found itself caught in a demographic “scissors”: population was rising faster than the economy was growing.  A growing population collided with a relatively stagnant economy.  Eventually, living standards would be forced down.  Moreover, an extended period of child-care for multiple children restricted China’s ability to mobilize women into the paid-labor force.  In 1980 Deng Xiaoping announced the “One-Child Policy” as part of the solution to this problem.[1]     

            The policy shifted many women into the paid-labor force at a time when China sought to prioritize economic growth.  The share of the population of working age people grew substantially in comparison to the share of the population of non-working age people.  Basically, that means children and retirees.  More labor became available for more years.  Huge numbers of Chinese between the ages of 20 and 64 flooded into the work that became available thanks to China’s opening to the West.  Double-digit economic growth rates followed.  That is, it worked! 

            There seems not to be available a source that tells us what the government decision-makers anticipated would happen over the long-term.  Worrying about what might happen many years down-range from some action taken today can paralyze action. 

            Today is the down-range of the many-days-ago.  What did happen?  The One-Child Policy shifted the age composition of the population.  Now, China’s population has a shrinking number of working-age people.  Women make up half of the working age population.  As a result, China also has a shrinking number of child-bearing age women.  China’s total population will fall.  A United Nations report projects that China’s population will shrink from 1.42 billion in 2024 to 639 million in 2100.[2]  Logically, there will be far fewer workers, anywhere from half as many to 60 percent fewer.  Thus, demographers anticipate that the most serious effects of this shift will not be felt for another 20 to 30 years. 

            Nor will they be felt in equal measure by other important countries.  For example, in terms of total population, in 2024 it is estimated that there are 1.42 billion Chinese and 344 million Americans; by 2100 there will be 639 million Chinese and 321 million Americans.  That is, China will go from having four times as many people as the United States to having twice as many.  The U.N. estimates that 31 percent of Chinese will be aged 65 or older by 2050; and 46 percent by 2100.  In contrast, the share of over-65s in the American population will by only 23 percent in 2050 and 28 percent in 2100.  That means that in 2100 China could have 345 million people under the age of 65, while the United States could have 248 million. 

            Zi Jinping appears to harbor grand ambitions for China.  China looks like it will have fewer workers, fewer consumers, fewer scientists, fewer engineers, and fewer soldiers.  The human basis of those great ambitions will slowly erode. 

            Will this foster a sense of desperation among Chinese leaders, either Zi in the immediate future or his successors in the later 21st Century?  There are ways to adapt to changing conditions.  You just have to be willing to do it. 

[1] Liyan Qi and Ming Li, “China Pays Price for Its One-Child Policy,” WSJ, 12 July 2024. 

[2] However, in 2022, the same U.N. office predicted China’s population would fall to 766.7 million people by 2100.  That’s a 128 million-person difference.  Another projection says that China will have 525 million people by 2100.  It’s not that the demographers are incompetent.  It’s just that getting reliable information out of China can be tricky. 

Great Power Conflict in the Far East.

Posted on by
Reply

            Ah, the 1990s!  The Soviet Union collapsed; its Eastern European subject states escaped from Communism; the Peoples’ Republic of China got religion in the form of a transition to capitalism (if not democracy); and all sorts of places junked much of the state-centered economic system that they had established during the Cold War.  Thereafter, China became increasingly tightly bound to the West.  It imported capital, technology, and “know-how” in exchange for cheap manufactured goods.  Meanwhile, the old Soviet Union came apart like a leper in a hot tub, while Russia itself plunged into corruption and economic chaos.  The United States employed its victory to push forward the boundaries of the “one right way”: free markets, an open world economy, democracy, human rights, and cultural freedom. 

            What a difference thirty years makes.  First, the economic component (labelled “globalization”) is under attack and in retreat.  Second, the political component (democratization, human rights) has not developed at the pace expected by many people.  (The unfulfilled promise of the economic and political components explains much about the flood of migrants from authoritarian developing countries into democratic developed countries.)  Third, the post-Cold War American-dominated world politico-economic system is under attack.[1] 

            At the heart of the matter lies China.  Zi Jinping’s “Belt and Road” initiative envisions building strong bonds, at the least, with surrounding countries.[2]  On the one hand, it means a focus on Central Asia.  On the other hand, it means domination of the little countries around the South China Sea.  Eventually, it may mean entirely driving the United States out of the Far East.  In the meantime, Russia’s war against Ukraine and Iran’s disruption of the Middle East pre-occupy the United States. 

            Vladimir Putin has been pursuing the resurrection of Russian power for two decades.  To this end he has used political manipulation, the fostering a Eurasian economic community among former members of the Soviet Union, the disruption of American policies in the Middle East, and war.  He has sought to escape isolation by tightening Russia’s relations with China, North Korea, and Iran.[3] 

            All through the Cold War, India was “neutral” on the side of the Soviet Union and at odds with China.  The Sino-Soviet conflict worked to India’s advantage.  Then the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s post-Mao economic and military transformation left India adrift.  Now, the working alliance between China and Russia leaves India in a more awkward position. 

            Real conflicts still divide China and Russia.  Putin’s desire to reunite the old Soviet Union (or recreate the Tsarist Empire) run cross-wise to Zi’s ambitions in Central Asia.  Putin’s recent tightening of relations with North Korea intrudes on an area of Chinese interest.  Putin’s recent visit to Vietnam may have vexed Zi because Vietnam is one of those nations around the South China Sea that China hopes to dominate. 

            No one should expect these conflicts to disrupt cooperation between China and Russia in the near term.  First they have to topple the Americans. 

[1] Walter Russell Mead, “Asia’s New ‘Game of Thrones’,” WSJ, 9 July 2024. 

[2] See: Belt and Road Initiative – Wikipedia; or Jane Perlez and Yufan Huang, “Behind China’s $1 Trillion Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order,” NYT, 13 May 2017. 

[3] All of which serve as “enablers” of his war against Ukraine. 

Trump-secutions.

Posted on by
Reply

“Lawfare” is a slippery term for a slippery subject.  One definition is: “the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual’s usage of their legal rights.”[1]  The goal of “lawfare” is to delegitimize an opponent in the court of public opinion, or to bleed their economic resources. 

At the heart of the investigations and prosecutions of former President Donald Trump lie three problems.[2]  First, Donald Trump faced a legal onslaught during his time as President.  He survived a protracted investigation of alleged “collusion with Russia” that turned up little but evidence of misbehavior by his political opponents.[3]  He underwent a prolonged parallel investigation by the House Intelligence Committee; Then he survived not one, but two self-inflicted impeachments.  In the case of the impeachments, he escaped in large measure thanks to party solidarity holding, regardless of the merits of either case.  Then Congress’s “January 6 Committee” elicited voluminous testimony on Trump’s attempts to overturn the election of 2020, culminating in the riot at the Capitol building.[4]  The varied presidential investigations and trials were all undertaken by his enemies.[5]  “Teflon Don” beat the rap each time.  He seemed primed to walk off into the sunset unscathed.  All of this enraged many Democrats. 

Second, there came the post-presidential legal prosecutions.  All were all undertaken by Democrats.  In the majority of cases, these were highly partisan Democrats elected in wildly anti-Trump districts, sometimes after pledging to prosecute Trump for something.[6]  As a result, the prosecutions can be portrayed as “lawfare,” rather than the pursuit of justice.[7]  In the case of delegitimization, Biden election ads on television constantly hit Trump as a “convicted felon.”  In the case of exhausting resources, Trump has used money donated to his campaign to pay for the legal expenses.  By June 2024, the meter had hit $80 million.[8] 

Third, the cases have not under-cut Trump’s popularity with a large segment of voters.[9]  Nor will conviction prevent him from serving a second term as President.[10]  Perhaps seeing those cases as “lawfare,” many voters shrug off the claims.[11]  On the one hand, almost continuously from 1 March to 10 July 2024, Trump has maintained a narrow lead in polls over President Biden.[12]  His share has never fallen below 40 percent in that period.  On the other hand, Trump’s conviction by Alvin Bragg met an immediate answer from pro-Trump small-donors: $34.8 million in a single day.  A further $111.8 million flowed in during June 2024.  None of the donors seem to object to their money being diverted to paying Trump’s legal bills.  Perhaps they see it as all part of the same campaign? 

Finally, there are the unexpected consequences.  In August 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained an indictment of Donald Trump for four crimes related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.  In October 2023, Trump’s lawyers claimed that the indictments should be dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity.  In December 2023 the presiding judge rejected the claims by Trump’s lawyers.  Trump announced that he would appeal.  Jack Smith, determined to keep the case moving forward with dispatch, asked the Supreme Court for an expedited decision on the limits of presidential immunity.   The Supreme Court turned him down flat.  The appeals court then rejected the claim of immunity.  Trump announced that he would appeal and asked that the case be paused until after the election of November 2024.  Jack Smith again stomped on the gas by asking the Supreme Court to hear the case right away.  This time he got what he wanted.  The Supreme Court issued its decision on 1 July 2024.[13] 

            That decision greatly extended the previous view of presidential immunity to all official acts within the President’s core areas of responsibility—those not shared with another branch of government.  So, to paraphrase one of the earlier judges, Joe Biden could order SEAL Team 6 to kill Donald Trump, then would have to be impeached before he could be tried.  Would he be convicted? 

[1] See: Lawfare – Wikipedia  This is different from “Lawfare,” the website.  See: Lawfare (website) – Wikipedia 

[2] Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman, “Trump Prosecutions Have Been Political Gift,” WSJ, 6-7 July 2024. 

[3] Well, they nailed Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for financial misdeeds related to Ukraine long before they became associated with the Trump campaign; they got George Papadopoulos for making false statements to the FBI; they got General Michael Flynn (ret.) for making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during his brief tenure as National Security Adviser.  See: Inspector General, Department of Justice, A Review of Various Actions by the FBI and DOJ in Advance of the Elections of 2016 (2018);  The Mueller Report: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the Presidential Election of 2016 (2019); Inspector General, Department of Justice, A Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (2019); Report of Special Counsel John Durham, Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns (justice.gov) (2023). 

[4] The January 6 Report: Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (2022). 

[5] In the case of the 6 January Committee, the nominations of two Republican Trump-supporters to the committee were rejected by the Speaker of the House, while two anti-Trump Republicans were accepted and three of the Democratic managers from Trump’s impeachments were also included. 

[6] Letitia James, during her campaign for the New York Attorney General’s Office in 2018, promised to prosecute Donald Trump, whom she described as an “illegitimate president” and she won; in January 2022, she filed a fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization for overstating the value of assets in loan applications.  In 2021, Alvin Bragg won election as District Attorney for New York County (Manhattan).  “A key issue in the election was which candidate would be best equipped to criminally prosecute or civilly sue former President Donald Trump.” 2021 New York County District Attorney election – Wikipedia.  Bragg won conviction using a “novel” legal theory.  Trump won 12 percent of the vote in the county in 2020.  Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis has charged Trump and a host of others under Georgia’s RICO law for election fraud.  Biden won 72 percent of the vote in Fulton county in 2020, Trump won 26 percent.  Willis’s case has been delayed—and may be completely derailed–by the intrusion of what seem to be irrelevant issues.  Jack Smith acting for the Department of Justice, has charged Trump with election interference in Washington, DC, and with unlawfully retaining secret government documents in Florida. 

[7] See: “Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia” (dir. Sam Peckinpah, 1974).  Actually, don’t see it.  Awful movie. 

[8] How are Trump’s legal bills and the 2024 campaigns being funded? There’s a lot we don’t know | CNN Politics 

[9] Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal has long argued that the federal prosecutions, at least, were intended to rally support for Trump at the expense of other Republicans.  Trump, he thinks, is the only Republican that Joe Biden can beat.  For the latest installment in this argument, see Holman Jenkins, “Team Biden’s Cynical Gambit,” WSJ, 10 July 2024.  However, Trump led in the primaries from first to last.  

[10] Although, who knows?  We might see journalists stuck reporting from the “Florence, Colorado, White House.”  There are half a dozen restaurants in the town of 3,500 people.  THE 10 BEST Restaurants in Florence (Updated July 2024) (tripadvisor.com) 

[11] A WSJ poll found respondents almost equally split between those who believed that Trump’s conviction showed that the system works to hold people accountable (47 percent) and those who believed that the courts respond to political pressure (49 percent).  This matches pretty well with support for the two men in polls. 

[12] Trump’s conviction was followed by a decline in his lead over Biden from 1.7 percent on 30 May to Biden being ahead by 0.2 percent on 25 June 2024.  Then came the first presidential debate.  Over the following two weeks, Trump went from 0.2 percent down to 2.1 percent up.  National : President: general election : 2024 Polls | FiveThirtyEight 

[13] Trump v. United States (2024) – Wikipedia 

Never Mind the Politics.

Posted on by
Reply

Never mind the politics that dominate in the media coverage of President Joe Biden. Never mind “Can he still beat Donald Trump?” Never mind “If he does win, can he hold it together–even stay alive–through a second term?” Never mind “If Biden does go, how do we get in a possible winner as nominee?” Never mind the “But he’s got the delegates locked up, and he’s determined to run, and we’re mostly old ourselves, so we might have to retire, so there’s no solution to the problem.” Never mind that, among the Democrats, the knives are out and scores are being settled through leaks and blaming. Never mind the Republicans chortling “told ya so.” Never mind any of it. Focus on the essentials.

Many Americans watched as much as they could stand of the first debate against Trump. Many Americans watched the “extended” (22 minutes) interview with George Stephanopoulos. The latter did nothing to repair the damage done by the former. He has “good” days and “bad” days. All of those days run between 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Before or after that, he isn’t reliably present. He’s best when reading a prepared statement from a teleprompter. Sometimes he makes do by reading public statements from 3×5 cards or having his staff point out where everybody else is in the binder of documents. His staff tries to shield him from extended exchanges with reporters and donors.

Foreign leaders saw what Americans saw. Some of those leaders are “friendly.” It must give them pause to think of the “leader of the Free World” in such a decrepit state. Some of those leaders are “enemies.” (Again, never mind the “challenging the rules-based international order” stuff. They are enemies out to bring us down.)

China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran all threaten different interests of the United States. If they believe that the United States will be slow to respond to a threat or action, if they think that delay and uncertainty will let them get a bite at the apple, then they will do what their rulers deem to be in the best interests of their regimes. They don’t have to coordinate a plan beforehand. They just need to be agile and ready to pounce. They will see our weakness and harm us, perhaps destroy us.

If you need an example, look at Benjamin Netanyahu. President Biden flew to Israel to offer solid American support after the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023. Netanyahu is nothing if not predatory and a sharp observer of the people with whom he has to deal. He surely read Biden like an open book. Since then, he has continually defied Biden over the war in Gaza. Part of that reflects American domestic politics during an election year. Part of it reflects Netanyahu’s judgment that Biden will be uncertain, wavering, and just a bunch of talk in his response to Israel’s actions.

The evident already-occurred mental and physical decline of President Joe Biden represents a grave threat to the national security of the United States. It will only worsen in time.

Crisis and Succession.

Posted on by
Reply

Logically, if Joe Biden is cognitively unfit to serve as President six months from now, then it is because he is cognitively unfit to serve as President right now.[1]  The objection to removing him from President right now appears to be that he is a nice man and it would hurt his feelings.  So, the best that we are going to get is a pained, but dignified announcement that he will not seek re-election and that he releases his delegates for the convention in August 2024. 

            Vice President Kamala Harris is often mentioned as Biden’s logical successor.  How will Harris fare if she seeks a term as President in her own right? 

Theodore Roosevelt succeeded William McKinley, then won a term in his own right. 

Calvin Coolidge succeeded Warren G. Harding, then won a term in his own right. 

Harry Truman succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt, then won a term in his own right. 

Richard Nixon followed Dwight Eisenhower, then failed to win a term in his own right. 

Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded John F. Kennedy, then won a term in his own right. 

Hubert Humphrey followed Lyndon Johnson, then failed to win a term in his own right. 

Gerald Ford succeeded Richard Nixon, then failed to win a term in his own right. 

George H. W. Bush followed Reagan and won a term in his own right. 

Al Gore followed Bill Clinton, then failed to win a term in his own right. 

Thus, between 1900 and 1964, four of five former Vice Presidents won the presidency in their own right.  So, the odds are good? 

Not necessarily.  Since 1964, one of four former Vice Presidents won in their attempt to win election as President in their own right.[2]  Why the change?  I don’t know. 

Those odds argue against any coronation of Vice President Harris as the Democratic nominee in 2024.  In turn, holding a truly open convention would allow a bunch of aspiring politicians to duke it out in smoke-filled[3] back rooms.  This might not produce a winner, but neither will Biden or—by the odds—Harris. 

However, past performance is no guarantee of future results.  Harris supporters can point to George H.W. Bush as a counter-example.[4]  It could happen. 

[1] Look up Woodrow Wilson and Edith Galt Wilson.  Or Winston Churchill’s second time as prime minister. 

[2] I omit Joe Biden because he did not try for election as President until after a full term out of office.  Others may well disagree with my decision.  That’s what makes horse races. 

[3] Yes, I do know that no one smokes any more.  I’m just having a hard time coming up with “la juste mot.”

[4] They may have to put up with some eye-rolling from their audience in response. 

Thinking About What Is Possible.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Democratic Convention will be held in Chicago from 19 to 22 August 2024. 

            The second Presidential Debate will be held on 10 September 2024. 

            Election Day is 5 November 2024. 

            It seems likely at this moment that President Joe Biden will continue his campaign for re-election.  He is described as “huddling” with his family, all strong supporters of his continuing his campaign.  Perhaps not the most objective bunch of people to consult, but there you have it.  Doubtless many other people—“the inner circle,” really rich donors, campaign people, pollsters, leading Democratic politicians—will also be consulted. 

If the Democrats are going to stick with President Joe Biden, then they are going to have to hope that he doesn’t suffer some cognitive mishap between now and Election Day.  In particular, they have to hope that the debate on 10 September is not a re-run of 27 June.  If he does suffer another melt-down—either in public or among the elites during some critical event—it will not be possible to sweep that under the carpet.  Also, it will discredit many of these people if they remove him as the candidate after having sworn up-and-down that he just had a “bad day” in June. 

            If the Democrats are going to force out President Biden as their standard-bearer, then they will have to do it by mid-August at the latest.  They can’t wait around to see how the 10 September debate turns out.  Forcing out President Biden by mid-August would allow them to either converge behind Vice President Kamala Harris or hold an open convention.  In either case, the sooner, the better.  There are only about six weeks left before mid-August. 

            Many people hold Vice President Harris in low regard.  Many Democrats probably would prefer that she not get the nomination.  She herself probably would very much like to be president.  She is unlikely to go quietly unless she gets a better offer.  The obvious solution is for her to move to the Supreme Court.  However, there are no current vacancies.  What to do? 

            The obvious (to me) solution is for Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resign her position in order to become…IDK, Ambassador to the United Nations?  How to get Sotomayor to resign from the Supreme Court?  Well, there is the still-unresolved matter of who leaked the draft opinion of the Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.  This amounted to a significant breach of Court policy and decorum.  It seems hardly possible for the leaker to remain on the Court.  So, before mid-August, there may be a leak to the press on recent discoveries achieved through forensic computer investigations. 

            If President Biden cannot be persuaded to leave and he leads the Democrats to defeat, there will be the “told you so” issue to trouble Democratic solidarity after the election.  If President Biden can be persuaded to leave, there will remain the “jump” or “pushed” issue to trouble Democratic solidarity both before and after the election.  Forcing out a Hispanic woman to be able to then force out an Afro-South Asian woman to be able to put in a White person will trouble Democratic solidarity.  Supposedly, “the prospect of being hanged concentrates the mind wonderfully.” 

            It could be an eventful Summer. 

Biden and Trump on Abortion.

Posted on by
Reply

            President Biden is a Catholic, and he long favored some restrictions on abortion when he was a senator (1973-2009).[1]  He now says that “Roe v. Wade got it right” and in the words of the New York Times “he seeks to put support for abortion at the heart of his re-election campaign.” 

            Biden has sought to by-pass the Supreme Court’s decision to return the question of abortion to the states.  Since “nearly two thirds” of abortions are by means of medication and that medication could be obtained in any state through the mail, Biden’s Justice Department has led the way by defending access to the medications (chiefly mifepristone).  On the one hand, the administration persuaded the Supreme Court to unanimously reject a lawsuit trying to limit access to the drug. On the other hand, the Department has issued an opinion that sending abortifacients through the mail does not violate the Comstock Act of 1873’s ban on sending abortifacients through the mail.[2]  He has also endorsed the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) in its effort to expand the list of approved providers to retail pharmacies.  His Department of Health and Human Services has “warned”[3] pharmacies that they might be violating civil rights laws if they refuse to dispense drugs that have multiple purposes. 

            In a second term, Biden wants to pass a law that would affirm the right to abortion throughout the United States.  He acknowledges that, to achieve this goal, the Democrats will need majorities in both the House and the Senate, and the end of the filibuster in the Senate.[4] 

            Former President Trump called himself “very pro-choice” a quarter-century ago.  When he sought the Republican nomination in 2026, he became an opponent of abortion.  He appointed three new Justices to the Supreme Court, which then overturned “Roe v. Wade.”  The Court returned the matter to the states to decide.  Former President Trump supports that decision.[5]  Trump also acted against public funding for abortions through the so-called Title X grants. 

However, Trump has been opaque, at the least, about other measures being suggested by opponents of any abortions for anyone anywhere.  In response to the—apparently previously unrecognized–fact that most abortions are performed by means of medications and those medications can be obtained through the mail, abortion opponents hastily turned to the Comstock Act.  Here the Trump campaign has not yet formulated a policy. 

Both candidates have moved far from their older positions, although Trump has moved farthest.  In the words of the New York Times, Trump has “largely treated abortion policy as a political transaction.”  It appears that the remark holds true for both men.  Now voters will exercise their right to choose which man’s political career to terminate for the health of the country. 

[1] For example, in 2006 he told an interviewer that “I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it’s always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions.” And further that “I won’t support public funding and I won’t support partial birth abortion.” Joe Biden described being an ‘odd man out’ with Democrats on abortion in 2006 interview | CNN Politics  In 2019 he abandoned his opposition to Medicaid funding abortions. 

[2] On the Act, see Comstock Act of 1873 – Wikipedia.  On its namesake, see Anthony Comstock – Wikipedia.  For the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, see New York Society for the Suppression of Vice – Wikipedia. 

[3] i.e. threatened.

[4] A Senate rule requires at least sixty votes to pass legislation.  The filibuster could be removed by a simple majority.  The Democrats currently have such a majority with 50 Senators and Vice President Harris as a tie-breaker.  The Democrats had a narrow majority in the House of Representatives from 2020 to 2022.  So, in theory and as in many earlier situations, they could have passed such a law without waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  The failure of the Democrats to seize this opportunity after President Trump had appointed three conservative Supreme Court Justices puzzles me.  One possible explanation is that the filibuster rule enables the minority party to block most of the legislation of the majority party at a time when elections are close to evenly balanced.  If you eliminate the filibuster so you can drive over your opponents, the same thing could happen to you after the next election.  For example, if the Republicans win control of the Congres and the White House, they could ram through a national abortion ban.  So, perhaps Biden’s proposed law will not be pressed if he wins a second term. 

[5] This seems consistent with his April 2024 statement that he would not sign a national abortion ban if passed by a future Congress.