The Senate should get rid of dusty anti-democratic practices like Unanimous Consent. Then, while they are are at it, just get rid of the Senate as well. Cupio dissolvi.
Category: Politics
Saving America
The man that saved America could not save his haircut.
Chihuahua Gate Gets an Update on State TV
A leaked video apparently shows El Presidente pooping on a chihuahua.
“You know what? If El Presidente thinks the video is an exoneration of him, perhaps somebody on his side actually did the leaking.”
“That makes sense.”
“It does, actually. He’s admitting he pooped on chihuahuas.”
“How many chihuahuas?”
“Hard to say. Really, this could be so commonplace that he never gave it much thought. You know, like order in the death squads, bring in the hookers and blow, some diet cokes, and a few chihuahuas.”
“It’s all part of his greater plan.”
“Exactly.”
Not on Twitter
A consensus seems to be forming around the idea that our recent (possibly transitory) inflation was largely driven by corporate profiteering responses in the face of a global supply chain shock caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. See: https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/what-if-were-thinking-about-inflation-all-wrong and https://www.levernews.com/how-pundits-inflation-myth-crushed-the-working-class/
The devil, of course, is in the details. Economists, enamored with outdated 19th century views on causality, hellbent on separating the wheat from the chaff, will continue to debate the “true cause” versus “the symptom” of inflation as if the world ever truly has a single identity to reveal. Nevertheless, one can lump variations on this economic tale under the single heading Greedflation.
Early on, Democratic politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were pushing the Greedflation line of reasoning. Economists like Noah Smith pushed back hard, equating it to the kind of fringe, gold-buggery economic ideas we often see on the right. On Twitter, I challenged Mr. Smith’s characterization. Whether or not profiteering was driving most, much, little, or none of our inflation seemed to me a genuine empirical question, perfectly consistent with textbook ECONOMICS of monopolistic pricing power (e.g., are “firms raising prices in anticipation of future cost increases? Or it an increase in monopoly power or higher demand?”) In other words, the Warren/Sanders line may be wrong, probably is wrong, but was certainly valid economic reasoning to be refuted by empirical evidence not dismissed through hand waving from high academic perches. Mr. Smith huffed, dismissed and snarked. Really, how much do grocers control pricing? Well, I don’t know. I’m not an economist and I certainly don’t specialize in market share and the ability of individual firms to set market price. Nor does a simple glance at market share reveal the scope of the problem because grocers are also retailers of products and can therefore use their leverage to assert monopolistic pricing practices on individual items (regardless if they take advantage of that position or not). Nevertheless, that wasn’t the point. The point is standard economic orthodoxy admits the possibility which is why I pushed back that this line of thinking was a fringe idea. (Even this was a step down for Mr. Smith as we went from totally bonkers idea to Kroger does not have sufficient monopoly power.)
Regardless, this isn’t a complaint about who was right or wrong. It’s about presentation of basic economic data and facts. Greedflation was a novel and somewhat unorthodox explanation. But it was not out of left field, conspiratorial as some economists (more anxious to display their centrist chops then to disseminate factual thoughtful discourse) argued at the time.
Twitter could work to flush out these ideas better, bring to the surface those hidden assumptions that drive much of the architecture of how we approach problems. A better discourse for sharing ideas. But that promise remains unfulfilled. Instead we reinforce dubious lines of thinking, and reject attempts to refine our discourse. I was less bothered by Smith’s cavalier dismissal (as if he couldn’t be bothered to think of a single, valid example of monopolistic pricing power and besides who the hell am I, some anonymous loser on Twitter?) then the legions of followers who felt compelled to pile on with personal anecdotes of unnecessary and often unrelated examples. This is why I’m no longer on Twitter. It’s great promise is unrealized because we cannot be challenged or asked to reflect in a more careful manner in a mad rush to be first (first = relevant).
And no, I’m not gonna pay for your substack where our current crop of elite intellectuals cocoon themselves within a select privileged list of paid subscribers (how does one set a market price on bullshit?). Really, the idea that Everyman is an island on to himself, is this what we think the future holds? If you really value your ideas you would want them to be free and accessible to all. But I am, and have always been, a democrat first and foremost.
Counter Narratives
Michael Warren Davis pens a curious article for The American Conservative entitled “What Russia Means: I want to tell you why Western elites hate Russia.” Curious, as I was not aware of the real roots of my own antipathy to Russia’s expansionist resurgence, itself another curiosity in Russia’s strategy of addition through SSR subtraction, or that Putin (surprise!) emerges as the central defender of real Russian hegemony: the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). The ROC! That great bane of our elite existence, the resurrection of which, the author gushes, “is nothing short of a miracle.” Indeed, we stand in awe of this lauded institution’s ability to survive the dark purges of Bolshevism (never let the complex nuances of historical swings from active persecution to passive tolerance stand in the way of a good story to tell). And what’s more I believe him, trust his reporting in a sort of leap of faith, miraculous sort of way, that the resurgence of the ROC is both measurable, well-defined, and real (e.g., not a miracle) and also miraculous (e.g., against all odds, a stacked deck worse than the pain of Autocephaly, schism, etc.)
It’s a deep secret we elites are not fond of telling the rest of you (no elite would bother to read the words of another elite which is why I only glanced at the article) that the real policy of containment was not, as the cover story goes, to contain the threat of a creeping Soviet expansionism, but rather to contain within the borders of The Iron Curtain, the awesome frightening spectre of Christianity. (Karl Marx: A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communion communism.) Let Stalin and his ilk deal with the threat, is something I imagine George Kennan said over a port of Brandy (an 1858 Croizet Cognac Leonie no doubt) and a Havana cigar while typing away at his Long Telegram, too long if he wanted to tell the truth (no need, we elites know and prefer not to tell ourselves or anyone else for that matter) so keep it simple Georgie boy! Sadly, the beast was not contained for the Soviet Empire collapsed, Bolshevism was destroyed, and Kennan’s dreams of an enlightened detente between the twin poles of Eastern state atheism and Western “NGO-style liberal democracy” lay shattered in ruins (I said contain, not destroy you buggers!)
It took the collapse of the Soviet Empire to bring into sharp focus the true barbarian at our gates. The ROC, with its smudged and worn away Rublev icons, primitive churches in quaint rural settings, Epiphany Baths, and Kupala Night bonfires, inspire a fear and terror in our elite (go ahead, say liberal or woke, you know you want to!) hearts greater than the sum of Soviet nuclear arsenal. No wonder that Western darling Ukraine vowed to stand up to the one force preventing NGO-elites from our single-minded goal of castrating children (where exactly does the ROC stand on infant circumcision?) Only the foolish would demand proof of such an astonishing counter-narrative. The article is its own kind of Epiphany Bath, a much needed cold splash to bring the sins of our time into full view. King Putin, Defender of the Faith, by the Grace of God, go and smite the enemies of God (go ahead, say liberal or woke, you know you want to!)
Blue Lives Revisited
Policing is a dangerous profession. There is a certain level of criminal behavior tolerated in the general public (under the banner and law of personal freedom – unlimited gun ownership, stand your ground, etc.) which compounds the uncertainty of any potential police encounter. Police are trained to control the situation but in America we allow too many unknowns to enter the equation. We fail the police in this respect. But we also fail them in another respect. We reduce enforcement to a subjective determination of the situation. In theory, this grants a police officer wider freedom of action. But in practice, this forces a greater level of tension to act rather than be acted upon. We fail the police by ignoring the level of psychological pressures this places on even the most mundane and routine situations.
In an earlier post, I refuted the whole Blue Lives Matter as a rhetorical device by bad actors who could care less about police lives and the stresses they endure and wished only to support unrestrained physical force against black people. Sadly, 1/6 proved this point. It was easy enough for those who proclaimed Blue Lives Matter to take a fire extinguisher and smash it on top of Officer Sicknick’s head. None of them respect the authority that policing represents as the embodiment of the rule of law.
The standard by which police reform should be measured, and the success by which it is to be judged, will be in how it better protects the lives and well-being of police officers and the general public.
History Behind Us, Now Shut the Door
Shut the door. Let go the pathology, the spell of constant fires burning. Time to pull up our sleeves and begin the hard work of putting fires out. Healing is forgetting. There will be enough time for history. I long ago learned that the spell was the glue that holds this broken man, this broken myth together. I shut the door on that a long time ago. It was always in my nature. I perfected the art of disenchantment long before the enchanters came on the scene. I could have waited them out another four years. I had strengthened my resolve for four more years. I am under no illusions they feel this is the end of enchantment. But we do not have to follow. Shut the door, there is a chill in the air and we need to rekindle a love of democracy, a retelling of republican virtue, that is, a faith that self-government is the highest expression of autonomy. We need not be not dragged down into their cauldron of spells. Power is ours once more. Use it wisely. Use it justly. But above all, use it.
Biden Won
In the end, it wasn’t even that close. The narrative could have been reinforced on the day after the election. But Joe Biden was denied a clean election. Republicans in the battleground states Biden would end up winning made sure the process was drawn out in order to create the seeds of doubt. In the end, Dems kept the House, won the Presidency by 4.5% or more than 7 million votes, and took the Senate. Had that narrative been reinforced, perceptions may not have been allowed to crack the cement of consensus.
All eyes fixated, as they always due post Bush v. Gore, on the early returns of Florida even though Florida is not replicable throughout the country. It’s metropolitan areas are not as rich a source of untapped democratic votes. Much of the North and interior resembles the rural South. The politics of Cuba throw off the political calculus.
Everyone says the stakes are high, but this time they really were. Those who attacked the capitol, the citadel of our democracy, laid bare the ugliness, vindictiveness, and violence that had followed the reign of the sad, clown-faced man. Many lessons will be drawn, such as the cowardice of people who know better. For me, the lesson I draw is the dangerous fantasy too many of us harbor – that of uncontested rule. Biden won. There will be an opposition. But will it be loyal both in the spirit of unity and allegiance to democracy? That remains in much doubt.
Our Schizophrenic Republic
The conservative critique of government is rooted in a Feudalistic notion of property. The point of self-governance is to wrestle property rights away from the encroachment of the king. The king has been dethroned, of course, but the tools of royal coercion still exist in a nefarious and nebulous concept of “the government” which stands over and above the actual forms in which self-government takes place. It’s not a well-thought out idea, more of a visceral reaction. “The government” in this sense is viewed as a distant, foreign, and at times, occupying force. Peculiar, since the anti-government symbolism coexists rather easily with a strong sense of nationalist pride.
The problem is this leads to the destructive habit of cherry-picking. When the government does something I agree with, this is good and right. In what sense? In the confused sense that the people will’s was truly expressed through the principle of self-governance. Similarly, when “the government” does something I disagree with, this is not only bad and wrong, but an attack on the very principle of self-government. Worse, it was undertaken without my consent. Therefore, by definition, it is a violation of the principle of self-government. Other minds will go further, uncovering secret plots and conspiracies rather than the more obvious reason of majority rule.
The schizophrenic view of government is often expressed as a difference between a democracy and a republic. Whether such a distinction ever made sense at any point in history, today it is certainly a meaningless distinction. Modern governments are inherently complex systems requiring a level of organizational and administrative operation that is largely immune from direct democratic rule. As populations grow, as economic activity expands, as social interactions evolve in increasingly sophisticated ways, governments will naturally grow. Those who dream of shrinking government by starving it of revenue seem oblivious to this fact. A government can be both complex and efficient. It can also be small and invasive. Levels are never a good way to measure any system.
The Only End
This was the inevitable conclusion to this tragic farce. The man with the sad clown face (let us no longer speak his name anywhere but in a courtroom or a jail). He was always a cancer. Everything he touches, he destroys. Family, business, faith, hope, love, laughter, all consumed by his cancerous soul. The second negative partisanship coupled with an over-reliance on geographical boundaries brought him into power and ushered in a four-year struggle, the choice was simple. Either the Republican Party would be destroyed or America. I take no pleasure in warning of this danger, of being “right”. The time for reasoning with the other side has long since past. Everything has been directed at one result. America would survive. That was my choice and the choice of 81 million strong. Everything was designed to contain this cancer from consuming our country.
The cancer is now destroying the Republican Party. To my conservative friends who truly don’t dream of civil war, who do not truly view me or other progressives as our own form of cancer, I offer this advice: let them go. Let Trump and the dark forces that prop him up go and start their own third party. No union is worth sacrificing your conscience.
The Hack 