Just Typing Out Loud.

Posted on August 30, 2022 by jsh54

A room-mate in college kept a pet rattle-snake named Edgar Cayce in a dry fish tank. He used to feed it mice. If you wanted to, you could watch this big bulge move through Edgar Cayce’s digestive tract. The “Baby Boom” (born between 1946 and 1963) has been like the mouse moving through American society. This has been reflected in products and institutions.[1] All of them expanded and then contracted as the “Baby Boom” passed through.

Except colleges and universities. Higher education has proved comparatively easy to expand, but really hard to contract, move, or even change to suit different times. Part of the expansion came with “Sputnik” (1957). All of a sudden, we were in a high visibility and high stakes race with the Russkies. Federal money poured into higher education, albeit with the intention of producing more scientists and engineers, rather than humanities or social science BAs. Part of the expansion came with expanding opportunities for women. Many more went to college; some of these went on to become some version of Peggy Olson. Part of the expansion came with the Vietnam War. Young men could get a draft deferment if they were in college, so lots went. In any event, colleges expanded in size (both physical plant and faculty numbers). Small state teachers colleges got turned into second-tier state universities; state universities got turned into the “Enormous State University” lampooned in the “Tank McNamara” cartoon strip. The larger point is that there are too many colleges.

Why didn’t they contract when the “Baby Boom” moved farther down the snake’s digestive tract? For one thing, higher education faculty and—for the most part—administrators are True Believers in what they are doing. At some point in their lives, they fell in love with a subject.[2] They believe in its moral value and in its economic utility. They could have made a lot more money if they had gone to law school or business school. But the work in those fields is mostly like watching paint dry. So, they’ll put up with a lot of abuse to keep doing it.[3] They will also fight like Hell if an administration tries to cut or change elements of the college education.

For another thing, colleges have resources that businesses and public education don’t have. They have alumni who can be dunned for contributions. They employ a lot of people whose spending contributes to the local community. Indeed, lots of the minor league public universities ended up being located well away from big cities in areas where closing or shrinking them would harm voters. They pushed the idea that a BA is a requirement of a “successful” life.

Fighting to stay alive has its own problems. Schools spend a lot of money on the amenities arms race to lure scarce students. They carry an ever-growing burden of administrators to deal with accrediting, state, and federal regulators. They employ all sorts of Educational and Emotional Support Humans to carry a generation of students ill-prepared to handle stress. This probably isn’t what anyone on any side wants to hear.

[1] Cribs, tricycles, coonskins caps, jeans, cars, music, drugs and alcohol, and now walkers, etc.; elementary and secondary schools, vacations down the Shore, Social Security and Medicare, and now mortuaries, etc.

[2] “Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin to sound the depths of that thou wilt profess; Be a divine in show, but level at the End of every Art; And live and die in Aristotle’s words; Ah, Sweet Analytics, t’is thou hast ravished me!”—Christopher Marlowe, “Doctor Faustus” (1593). Memorized the passage in John Webster’s Early English Literature class at the University of Washington in Fall 1972. It’s why the hard core of us do what we do.

[3] Doctors, lawyers, and college professors used to make about the same income. College salaries have been held below the inflation rate for a long time.

Fed Up.

Posted on August 28, 2022 by jsh54

Once upon a time, Martin Short asked Mel Brooks “So, what’s your big beef with the Nazis?”[1] He could ask Andrew Weissmann the same thing about Donald Trump.[2] In a recent op-ed Weissmann makes several important points about the “raid on Mar-a-Lago.”

First, state secrets are STATE secrets and thus government property, not the personal property of any government employee or private citizen. The government has the duty to defend the security of that information. That went for the Pentagon Papers and the Edward Snowden revelations,[3] so it has to apply to the stuff that Donald Trump took with him into “a sunny place for shady people.”[4]

Second, the government had been trying to get the stuff back for quite a while. Trump had returned some stuff, but not everything. (In contrast, at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term, he and Hilary Clinton took home some furniture and other odds and ends that had been meant for the White House. When they got called on it, they sent them right back.[5]) Meanwhile, the material in question was being stored in a room in Trump’s home. Eventually, the Feds got fed up. Nothing short of breaking down Trump’s front door with a battering ram and a warrant would work. Feds shouldn’t have to get fed up in a situation like this.

It seems to me impossible to believe that whatever lawyers Donald Trump had representing him couldn’t figure out all of this, even if they had to refer to WestLaw on-line. It seems impossible to me to believe that the lawyers didn’t tell him as much.[6] So, in Weissmann’s words, the “redacted affidavit is further proof that Mr. Trump’s flouting of criminal statutes persisted for a long time and gives every appearance of being intentional.”

Third, “Mr. Trump’s penchant for hyperbole and spin to his base will be ineffective in a forum where the rule of law governs.” That may be true if the intelligence community decides that Trump’s retaining the documents actually compromised American security or if Attorney General Merrick Garland decides that Trump retained them from a demonstrable corrupt purpose. Either of those cases would likely trigger a prosecution. Probably lawyers could cite many other legitimate charges. One real question would be if Garland wants to prosecute the likely Republican presidential nominee in 2024. Trump himself is shameless, so being charged with something isn’t likely to deter him from running for office. Trial, verdict, appeals if not acquitted or if there isn’t a hung jury: all this could string out the proceedings for a long time.

Finally, an American election isn’t a “forum where the rule of law governs.” Rather, it is a place where—too often—”hyperbole and spin” are the common currency on both sides. If Trump loses, that’s one thing. If Trump wins, it could mean a third impeachment trial. Or not. What if there really is a Republican wave in 2022 and 2024?

[1] Mel Brooks & Jiminy Glick – YouTube Start at 4:41 for the line, but the whole routine is worth a watch.

[2] On Weissmann, see Andrew Weissmann – Wikipedia and on his account of the Mueller investigation, Where Law Ends – Wikipedia

[3] In both of those cases, it seems to me that the revelations served the larger public interest.

[4] As someone once described Monaco.

[5] See: Clintons Began Taking White House Property a Year Ago – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

[6] OK, he didn’t pay no never mind to Bill Barr or Pat Cipollone. Perhaps his current lawyers are sitting around with their heads in their hands going “What was I thinking?”

In this age of rising authoritarianism.

Posted on August 28, 2022 by jsh54

Journalism professor Peter Beinart refers to “this age of rising authoritarianism.”[1] In what sense is this an “age of rising authoritarianism”?

The history of Russia is a history of authoritarianism. The appalling Tsarist monarchy gave way to the even worse Communist era, which gave way to the appalling Putin dictatorship. The point is, Russia has been an authoritarian state for virtually its entire history. The history of China is the history of authoritarianism. The Qing monarchy gave way to the “age of the warlords” until the Kuomintang (KMT) established a national dictatorship. The Communists replaced this dictatorship with their own—even worse—dictatorship in 1949. Much has changed in China since the 1980s, but it remains a highly effective authoritarian state. Since gaining independence from Britain in 1949, India and Pakistan have been, at best, false-front democracies hiding real authoritarianism. The list of Less Developed Nations that are anti-democratic horror stories is as long as your arm and has been for decades.

“Well, well, authoritarianism is rising in places like Europe.” No, it isn’t. If anything, we have been witnessing are nationalist revolts against threatening authoritarianism. Poland and Hungary have resisted the encroachments of the anything-but-liberal and German-dominated administrative state of the European Union (EU). In 2003, French President Jacques Chirac said that Eastern European countries who supported the American invasion of Iraq had “missed the chance to shut up.”[2] One particular flash-point in this resistance came when semi-authoritarian Turkey used the refugee/migrant weapon against the EU. German Chancellor Angela Merkel responded by issuing quotas of illegal immigrants to be absorbed by each EU member state. It is possible to see Ukraine’s resistance to Russian’s invasion in the same light, even if the situation and the Ukrainian response are both more extreme. Yet no one questions the legitimacy of Ukraine asserting its own independence against clanking, rather than creeping, authoritarianism.

Then there is “Brexit.” That went well beyond whatever the Poles and Hungarians have done. It is best understood by an upwelling of English patriotism among an older generation for whom nationality still has some meaning.[3] In contrast, the much-feared “Grexit” never happened because the Greeks bent before EU (and especially German) pressure.

If authoritarianism isn’t “rising,” why claim that it is? I suspect that is because it allows Progressive people to set Donald Trump in a particular framework. “[T]oday you do not need to have a dictatorship or a one-party state in order to accomplish your goals. You can take a democracy and change it through expansions of executive power and other repressions until you have the same effect on the subject population and a quasi-rubber-stamp parliament, without declaring a dictatorship….Now with Trump, he uses fascist tactics.”[4]

What might worry some people is that such a characterization might be used to justify exceptional measures in defense of “our democracy.”

[1] Peter Beinart, “Has the Right Against Antisemitism Lost Its Way?” NYT, 28 August 2022. The op-ed piece itself is really good on its subject.

[2] See: CNN.com – Chirac lashes out at ‘new Europe’ – Feb. 18, 2003

[3] I suspect that it really began with the referendum on Scottish independence. In the background of television news reports I noticed growing numbers of “Cross of St. George” flags. That’s the English half of the more familiar “Union jack” created after the Act of Union (1707).

[4] LISTEN: Ruth Ben-Ghiat on how Trump is already using “fascist tactics” | Salon.com

Two Weeks in Philadelphia.

Posted on August 24, 2022 by jsh54

The mountains on the Peloponnese peninsula in southern Greece are steep-sided and forested at the upper levels. They yield a host of narrow valleys. From November to April each year, their streams fill, but then dry up. The valley soil is badly eroded; much of the vegetation is scrubby laurel and myrtle; small-scale farming is possible, but goat herding is much more common; and no Greek government has ever seen much gain in spending money on schools, roads or reservoirs. In short, it’s a poor place, one where it is “good to be from.” Many are.

One of them was Savvas Paraskevopoulos (b: c. 1880). He got together the money for a steerage-class ticket, gave up goat herding, and came to America in 1901. He worked on railroads, moving West, Americanized his name to “Mike Mitchell,” ended up in Galveston and settled down. He opened a shoe-shine shop, made a success of it, got married and had a family.

Parents want children to make them proud. His son George Phydias Mitchell (1919-2013) did. In 1940, George graduated from Texas A&M as the class valedictorian with a degree in petroleum engineering and geology. The Army Engineers immediately grabbed him for the duration. After the war, he worked for one of the major oil companies, then formed a company, Mitchell Energy & Development Corp to find and develop oil wells. He was good at this. By 2004, he was estimated to be worth $1.6 billion. So, the son of an immigrant Greek goat-herder becomes one of the richest people in the world.

In 1973 came the first of the “oil shocks” that turned the world economy and its politics topsy-turvy. People started looking for ways to enhance America’s energy independence through new sources, fuel efficiency, and conservation. George Mitchell gave the issue a lot of hard thought. He knew that people had been investigating “massive hydraulic fracturing” (or “fracking” in the lingo of the business) for quite a while. He wondered if it would be possible to apply “fracking” to the huge Barnett Shale of north Texas. He wasn’t a guy to just “wonder if.” By one estimate, between 1981and 1997, Mitchell plowed $250 million into finding out, then making it work on a cost-efficient basis. That is, Mitchell unlocked a huge amount of natural gas at a low cost. The Brookings Institution estimated that it has provided a net benefit of $48 billion per year to consumers and industry. Soon, the methods were applied to other shales in the United States and Canada, then in China and other parts of the world.

Irving Yergin (1907-1986) did the sensible thing for a Jew born in tsarist Russia. He went to America. He worked his way west, ending up in Hollywood, where he went into the movie business, settled down, and had a family. His son Daniel (1947- ) shone as a student (BA, Yale; MA, PhD, Cambridge University). His dissertation turned into a successful book Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State (1977). Headed for tenure in the Ivy League, events redirected him. When, in the 1970s, the two “oil shocks” roiled the global economy and politics, Yergin made himself into an energy industry expert with compelling opinions and a fluent manner of expressing them. Yergin wrote a series of highly readable door-stops.[1] Now Yergin has turned his attention to the “fracking” industry and some of its implications for renewable energy.[2] George Mitchell is one of his protagonists.

[1] The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (1991); The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (2002); The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World (2011).

[2] Daniel Yergin, The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations (2020).

My Weekly Reader 22 August 2022.

Posted on August 22, 2022 by jsh54

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 August 18, 2022 by jsh54

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 August 17, 2022 by jsh54

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 August 16, 2022 by jsh54

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 21^st 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 August 15, 2022 by jsh54

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 19^th 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 21^st 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 August 12, 2022 by jsh54

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.