Tactical Democrats

Kevin Drum has a post up claiming Dems moved to the left because it became more politically viable.  Obama and both Clintons were tactical centrists in this view.  They were always in favor of more left wing policies, but were more conservative in public because of perceived tactical advantage.  Here's my response:

I'm with Kevin, but only up to a point. The tactical centrists were clearly losing as 2016 rolled around. Republicans had pretty much taken over all branches of government, federal and state. So the smart Democrats realized that they needed better tactics which happened to align with better policies in some instances. 

But, there were and are honest differences of opinion with regard to policy. Many centrists were especially were fixated on fiscal responsibility.  This was a tactical mistake in addition to being a policy mistake, IMO. The fiscal doves have been proven right, and thus many Dem centrists are letting go of fiscal responsibility in favor of things like Medicare for all.  

On the other hand,  many centrists are more hawkish in supporting American values and economic preferences in foreign affairs. With the renewal of the Cold War, many centrist Dems are moving to the right on foreign policy, and this remains a real split within the Democratic party.

In the big picture, as others have said here before me, the Democrats need a vision that is both morally sound and tactically effective. You can't have one without the other.

Idiocracy

Idiocracy was a 2006 film that depicted a future dysfunctional human society.  One striking element of this dystopia was the prevalence of malfunctioning machines across the landscape.  I feel that this is the direction we are headed with our over-reliance on technology and investment in stupid machines such as self-driving cars.

The point is that immensely complicated machines such as "autonomous vehicles" are expensive to  maintain.  We are trying to create an inordinately complex system which we will not be able to maintain properly.  Truly intelligent creatures such as humans have evolved mechanisms for self-maintenance, death, and reproduction.  We are building machines with no such mechanisms.  Already our society is drowning in junk.

We are fast becoming an idiotic society and should change our focus to sustainability.

Poetic Justice in Trump Victory

Lately I've been thinking about NY Times columnist David Brooks.  Brooks was a leading proponent of the 2003 Iraq War, and followed this up by supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin.  He was against Obama and supported Republicans throughout most of the Obama presidency.

One thing lacking from the Obama presidency was accountability for the misdeeds that were done in the preceding presidency of George W. Bush.  The Iraq War was a disaster of epic proportions, and the housing bubble and collapse were aided and abetted by top Wall Street and government officials.  Obama perhaps did not have the power to tackle these misdeeds and hold the perpetrators accountable.  He would have been opposed by the establishment, including relative centrists such as David Brooks.

Only with the election of Trump have influential people such as Brooks come to support accountability in the executive branch.  Now we are getting investigations into government corruption.  There have been a number of charges brought so far.  Importantly, the charges relate more to business as usual than to do any particular crimes of the Trump Administration.  Trump and his associates are more prone to lie blatantly, so they are easier targets, but otherwise the nature of the crimes is not so much different from business as usual -- i.e. going over the line in lobbying activities, taking advantage of political connections for international wheeling and dealing, political dirty tricks, etc.

Thus, in his perverse way, Trump has been a godsend for clean politics in the United States.

A Letter to Supporters of David Brooks

Brooks built his career as an advocate for the 2003 Iraq War (at The Weekly Standard).  This led to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis, greatly strengthened Iran's influence in Iraq, destroyed the viability of international institutions, led to ISIS and the Syrian civil war with mass emigration of refugees to Europe, and brought us the Trump presidency, Brexit and Gilets Jaunes.  In April 2003, Brooks predicted a generation of stability and prosperity due to the success of the war.  In this spirit, he supported Sarah Palin as John McCain's VP choice in 2008.  He has been wrong on a truly epic level.

Now it is said that he's changed.  He is leading a new Aspen Institute initiative to understand and reduce the growing fragmentation, alienation, and division around the country.  I have finished the article we started in on the other night at Henry Ford Village -- Students Learn From People They Love.  He recommends building good relationships!

How would you design a school if you wanted to put relationship quality at the core? Come to think of it, how would you design a Congress?  

In my opinion, this is too little, too late.  Brooks and his Republican / neocon cohort (John Bolton was a fellow writer for the Weekly Standard) contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths and immense chaos around the world.  Brooks shows no self-awareness, but rather ignores his previous mistakes.  Of course, what bothers me is that, without evidence,  he casts people of my political persuasion as extremists on the same level as Trump.  (This is a recurring theme and I will provide citations upon request.)  I actually don't read Brooks as reaching out to build a good relationship with people like me.  When Brooks starts writing about cooperating on things I deeply believe in,  such as the use of democratic principles in resolving international disputes, as opposed to unilateral war based upon false grounds, then I'll take him more seriously.  

ADDENDA

Read The Collapse of the Dream Palaces to appreciate Brooks' contempt for those who were right about the Iraq War and the tragic events that would follow.  

For an example of someone who made of an effort in coming to terms with his mistakes, see Robert McNamara:

In 1982, McNamara joined several other former national security officials in urging that the United States pledge to not use nuclear weapons first in Europe in the event of hostilities; subsequently he proposed the elimination of nuclear weapons as an element of NATO's defense posture...  McNamara's memoir, In Retrospect, published in 1995, presented an account and analysis of the Vietnam War from his point of view. According to his lengthy New York Times obituary, "[h]e concluded well before leaving the Pentagon that the war was futile, but he did not share that insight with the public until late in life. In 1995, he took a stand against his own conduct of the war, confessing in a memoir that it was 'wrong, terribly wrong'." In return, he faced a "firestorm of scorn" at that time. 

Flaw in Our Democracy

No one will be elected on a platform of delivering the bad news, i.e.

• The planet's environment is reaching its limits with regard to sustain human life and civilization as currently configured.
• Technology will not save us.  
• We need to cutback -- reduce our lifestyle and freedom to invest in polluting and dangerous technologies.

Difference Between New Keynesian Economics and Modern Monetary Theory

Peter Cooper (heteconomist) has a post today on One of the Fundamental Differences Between Modern Monetary Theory and New Keynesian Economics.  That got me thinking and I'd like to simplify what he said.

New Keynesian Economics (NKE) is the current standard for Democrats in the United States and (neo)liberals around the world.  See the Evolution of Selected Economic Schools.  It was developed around 1980 as a response to difficulties that the U.S. and other economies were facing after decades of experience with Keynesian economics as the predominant paradigm.  Specifically, inflation had become a problem.

At root is the issue of limitations on the power of government with regard to macroeconomic policy.  Households, businesses, and small countries have a limited amount of power to create their own money and mobilize workers to solve problems.  Large and powerful nations, such as the United States since World War II, have a much greater capacity to do this.  Even so, there are limits.  Creating too much money can cause inflation.  Too much direct management of the nation's economy can restrict individual freedom, resulting in personal incentives that differ dramatically from governmental incentives.  This is generally recognized as the problem with Communism.

The main difference between NKE and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is on the limits of government power to control the economy..  NKE relies upon classical concepts of economics in which governments are small and weak, not much different from businesses.  In this line of thinking, governments should generally balance their budgets.  Only when unemployment is exceptionally high should governments run deficits to stimulate the economy.  Other tools, such as manipulation of government interest rates and regulation are deemed appropriate for managing the economy during more normal times.

MMT, on the other hand, claims that the NKE limit of government spending is needlessly restrictive for large and prosperous nations, while tinkering with government interest rates (monetary policy) is generally ineffective.  Governments can and should do more to achieve societal goals.  Inflation can be addressed more directly when it becomes a serious problem. 

In essence, NKE economists feel that MMT will fail for the same reasons Communism failed -- too much government control of the economy cannot work.  MMT economists feel that NKE will fail for the same reasons classical capitalism failed -- free markets by themselves do not address many societal failures.

Compounding this basic philosophical difference, NKE and neoclassical (mainstream Republican) economists frequently employ an almost religious taboo against discussing the appropriate boundaries of government involvement in the economy.  Their economic preferences are accorded the status of natural laws.  Understandably, this infuriates MMT economists and is a major problem with economic discourse.  Just as religious dogma has been used historically to support the status quo, economic dogma is used to support the status quo.

For a good example of how the NKE / neoclassical dogma is wrong and counterproductive, please see The Socrates Show, with guest Pete Peterson.

Trump-Russia Parallel to Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein

In my view, most of the Trump-Putin collusion stories are nonsense, as is the notion that Russia played a significant role in Trump's victory over Clinton. I see a reaction in this regard from liberals and centrists that is similar to the reaction from conservatives and centrists in 2003 to the charge that Saddam Hussein was somehow in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.  The evidence was bogus, but anyone pointing that out would be accused of being a sympathizer with the demons involved -- Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Similarly today, anyone pointing the bogus nature of the Trump-Putin collusion charges is branded a supporter of Trump and/or Putin.  Just in the Iraq War, the end result will be disastrous if emotion is allowed to overcome reason.  The Iraq War proved to be damaging to U.S. credibility and thus to our efforts to combat Islamic terrorists.  Liberals and centrists threaten to similarly damage their credibility.  There is plenty to criticize in the Republican party and Trump administrative without making bogus charges which will end up supporting the Republican case.