Sunday, April 6, 2014

2016: Bush v. Clinton



Is it too early to make presidential predictions for 2016? Well, not for me because I am a political junkie.

It’s going to be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. 

I feel sure that they both plan to run and that nobody in their respective parties is capable of stopping them.

So who would win a Bush v. Clinton race? I think Hillary has the edge. Now, before you call your bookie, I should point out that my record on predictions is not stellar. In 1980, when the GOP nominated Ronald Reagan, I felt that Carter was a shoo-in for re-election. I had lived in California for six years of Reagan’s governorship, so I knew him to be a class-A doofus of very limited intelligence. “The American people don’t want a not-too-bright doofus for president!” I confidently told myself.

I was wrong.

So, Nate Silver, I am not. But here is my thinking. Hillary’s main weaknesses are her age and the baggage that comes with connections to a controversial political family. Jeb being in his sixties (albeit not as deep into his sixties as is Hillary) will somewhat ameliorate her vulnerability on the age issue.

As for the, “Haven’t we had enough of that family?” factor, only Jeb Bush invalidates that point against her. In fact he more than invalidates it, given the obvious comparison between the disastrous W. presidency as opposed to the economically sound, balanced-budget Clinton era.

Where the Electoral College is concerned, I expect that Jeb will take Florida since he’s still fairly popular here, and Hillary will take Pennsylvania. The winner of Ohio, as usual, will be the winner of the general election.

Jeb has an advantage in being married to a Hispanic woman and having mastered the Spanish language. He may attract more Hispanic voters than the typical GOP candidate. But Hillary has the advantage of being the first viable presidential candidate who can confidently claim to truly get women’s issues.

In the end, I believe Hillary has the edge mainly because of this: Jeb has to deal with the Republican Party. The Tea Party will hammer him during the primaries and probably force him to move right on a number of issues. In order to get the nomination, he may have to take nutty positions on gay marriage, global warming or immigration. Ultimately, the GOP may split into two, with one faction forming a new, officially independent Tea Party, while the other tries to maintain an Eisenhowerish moderate conservative position. Such a split might bring about a Republican resurgence, but I expect this would only happen after the 2016 election.

I will say up front that I sincerely hope that our next president is Hillary, or some other progressive Democrat. This is partly on general principles, but very specifically because the next president is going to shape the Supreme Court in a big way. The latest justices appointed to the Supreme Court have been on the young side, and this is no doubt because both W and Obama wanted to have their influence on that court be enduring. And one thing this country does not need is a Supreme Court that goes on for decades making decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon - decisions that guarantee ever more corruption in our electoral politics.




May God (or Nate Silver or someone like that) save us, then, from another Bush presidency.





Saturday, March 22, 2014

Crimea for the Beginner


Since Crimea has been in the news lately, allow me to step forward here and offer some background concerning this area. Much of my information is based on Tony Richardson’s 1968 Crimean War film, The Charge of the Light Brigade.

That movie is famous for being long and including a satirical cartoon sequence in which Victorian status-seeking and ignorant war-mongering are spoofed. Easy but worthwhile targets.

Since the film condemns militaristic bullying of the type that the U.S. was pursuing in Vietnam at the time, it is, generally regarded as an anti-Vietnam War film. The good parts, including the cartoon segment, are worth viewing, but unfortunately they are peppered among lots of parts that are, as the Russians say, НЕХОРОШО (i.e., sucky).

The Crimean War of the 1850s came down to the British and French telling Russia it was wrong to beat up on the Ottoman Empire and then driving the lesson home by beating up on Russia. Religious differences and access to the Middle East were the real issues. Surprise, surprise.

The war was not at all confined to Crimea but included campaigns in Chechnya, Georgia, Finland, the Balkans, and along Russia’s Pacific Coast. It is famous both for the work of Florence Nightingale in laying the groundwork for modern nursing, and for the “charge of the light brigade,” immortalized in Tennyson’s poem of that name. The charge, well portrayed in the Richardson film, reminds us that in war, the lives of brave men are commonly sacrificed on the altar of official stupidity.





Most Crimeans today are Russian since Stalin expelled its Turkish-era Tatar population in 1944, only some of whom were able to return after perestroika. Tatars now make up around 10% of Crimea's population, and, with bitter memories of their brutal deportation by Stalin still strong, they are among the most fiercely opposed to Putin's takeover.

In 1954 Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea over to Ukraine, thereby ending its longstanding status as part of Russia. He made this sudden change in the map despite Crimea's historical connections to Turkey and Russia and its predominantly Russian population. Khrushchev was himself a Ukrainian, or at least half Ukrainian, and identified more strongly with Ukraine than with Russia.

By the way, those old enough to remember Khrushchev in his heyday, fondly recall an incident at the UN where, in a fit of anger at a pro-Western speaker, he used his shoe to bang furiously on the table before him. The incident is famous in Cold War lore and, though nobody apparently filmed it, fake photos of it live on.




Khrushchev, in my opinion, had his positive points. He was a better man than Stalin who preceded him and Breshnev who followed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin claims that Khrushchev’s transferring of Crimea to Ukraine was unconstitutional and, if there’s one thing Vlad the Invader insists on, it’s respect for constitutional propriety. That and kicking ass.

Since the Crimeans are mainly Russian and favor belonging to Russia, and, since the transfer of Crimea from Russia to Ukraine was weirdly spontaneous, if not unconstitutional, how upset should the West be toward Putin’s power grab?

This is a question I won’t venture to answer here, but I will say that those who blame President Obama for bringing this about by being “weak,” are chock full of curdled borscht. It’s not Obama’s fault. It’s Bush’s. When he looked into Putin’s soul, he forgot to tell us about the thuggish parts.



Saturday, March 15, 2014

Libertarianism: Young America's Hothouse Philosophy



I once asked the students in my Cultures of China class this: Would they have willingly participated in the extremely profitable opium trade that was undermining Chinese society in the 1800s, had they been entrepreneurs in that era. I was surprised to find that a majority said they would.

They held to their profit-motivated position in spite of my having spent some time describing the family destitution, the starvation of Chinese children, and other disasters that accompanied the importation of tons of opium into China by foreign merchants. Their basic argument was that everyone is responsible for their own fate. If people want to become drug addicts and we can make some money off them, so be it.



                        Chinese Opium Smokers


I asked one particularly adamant young man if he thought it would be morally OK to peddle heroin out of a food truck on our campus (assuming to do so was legal), even knowing that this would ultimately wreck the lives of dozens or even hundreds of his classmates. He thought for three or four seconds, and then replied, “I’d have to say ‘Yes.’”

Color me taken aback. I felt I had kicked over a campus rock only to reveal a slithering, squirming tangle of anti-social amorality.

True, I have encountered used car salesmen who clung to the idea that if they could get rich off of my misguided trust in their sales pitch, well, screw me and more power to them. But I was not reassured to see this attitude widely shared by my students. Admittedly, a large number of them were business majors, and I’m pretty sure that this partially explains their position. But still…

Naturally, I’m reluctant to point fingers over America’s current ethical collapse, but if you could see my head, you'd notice that it is gesturing meaningfully toward libertarianism. This, surely, is the beast that has raised its hoary head over today’s hapless students. This head, by the way, is also decidedly whorey.

In its modern, young American form, libertarianism apparently boils down to this precept: “We are masters of our own fate. We should be allowed to make any decisions we choose about our own lives as long as we aren’t physically assaulting our fellow citizens or seizing their property. If we destroy our own lives because of our decisions, and maybe the lives of our children as well, too bad. That’s nobody’s business but our own.”

This is a weirdly unrealistic philosophy, one that has no connection to scientific understandings of human nature. It reminds me of a saying I first heard years ago, supposedly Spanish or Middle Eastern in origin: “Take what you want and pay for it, says God.”

The underlying idea (again, contrary to science) is that free people shape their own lives, and nobody need be concerned about anybody else.

I’m assuming most of these young people will grow out of libertarianism as they accumulate wisdom and experience. Furthermore, as one who, in his college years, yearned to be free of parental and other authority, I totally get the appeal of a philosophy that says, “You have no responsibility for anyone or anything. Go for it!” As a young man I rebelled against school, church, and the military, and I indulged in endless political debates with my moderately conservative, Republican parents. I also confess that I broke the law without a qualm as I "experimented" with marijuana.

I did avoid heroin, though, having heard about its irresistibly addictive properties.

Economists, most of them, anyway, can provide dozens of reasons, historical and logical, as to why libertarianism makes no sense. But what strikes me as the underlying fatal flaw in libertarianism is its willful ignorance of just how utterly social human beings are. We are not individuals who just happen to live near other individuals whose influence on us can be resisted or controlled. Our brains are fundamentally designed to coordinate our thoughts and behavior in accordance with those around us. As Matthew Lieberman points out in his fascinating new book Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect, our thoughts, even in default mode, automatically revert to making social calculations with reference to the people around us.

We do not “choose” our fates, as libertarians would have us believe. They are, for the most part, handed to us whether we want them or not. We do not, for example, “choose,” as free and independent human beings, to speak English or any other language. Our native language gets into our head whether we choose it or not. To a lesser extent, the same thing is true of religion. Which is why huge swaths of territory on a map of the world can be marked as predominantly Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever.

A child born and raised in a Bedouin family in Algeria does not say to herself, “Let me see. What shall I be – Muslim, Shinto, or agnostic? Which life-shaping path will I choose? I know – Hare Krishna!”



Most people grow up with the religions inculcated in them during their childhoods and never abandon them.

Language and religion are just two of the most obvious examples of brain control that are largely beyond individual choice. Another one is the choice of libertarianism itself. Relying, admittedly, on personal, anecdotal, observations, I am inclined to conclude that the typical libertarian is a white, middle class individual with pretty good life prospects. I doubt that the devastated streets of South L.A. or the impoverished Mexican-American villages of South Texas generate many libertarians. People from communities like these recognize that most lives are pounded into shape by forces beyond individual control.

So if you want to find the soil that best nourishes the mythology of libertarianism,  look in the hothouse of white, middle-class privilege.