The Biggest Conspiracy Theory of My Lifetime? Saddam has WMDs

The New York Times is bemoaning "conspiracy theories" generated by the Internet Age. It is true that technology makes it easy and cheap to spread the fraudulent and the half-baked. Trouble is, the NYT and other establishment media spreads steady misinformation too, and even uses the Internet to do it (Tom Friedman has a Twitter account, need I say more?).

The Iraq Invasion was built on conspiracy theories promulgated by esteemed outlets like the NYT (plus WaPo, WSJ, the Economist, etc.). Did the NYT's Tom Friedman, Bill Keller, and David Brooks or WaPo's Richard Cohen, or any of the other conspiracy spreaders get fired once everything they said was proven untrue? No. Other than the NYT's Judith Miller, no one took a fall. 

Joe Scarborough was on MSNBC then, is still there now, and is probably a bigger celebrity today than he was when he was spreading conspiracies about Iraq's weapons program. The list of misinformers is long enough to fill six Wikipedias. I think Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert owe much of their success to the spectacular failure of the "respectable" media with respect to Iraq.

The legacy media loved social media and the Internet in '08 when it helped their candidate win. The very idea that Obama was an "outsider" organically foisted to prominence via grassroots Internet support is itself misinformation spread by outlets like the Times. 

The mostly imaginary "Arab Spring," with its goofy narrative of a grassroots, democratic Mideast revolution largely ignited by social media - was another Internet-focused conspiracy theory spread by the establishment press. I am not aware of any establishment hacks getting the boot for promoting that turkey-on-wheels.

Amazingly (but unsurprisingly), the traditional press was too clueless to recognize that the same tools they claimed were behind their preferred brand of popular movement could also be used to abet popular movements anathema to them. Such anopia might help explain why so many of them have been unprofitable for years.



On Twitter: @greatmikepayne

Which produces more rejects: comedy or politics?

I appear on JL Cauvin's podcast to answer this timeworn question.

Should Trump have his orange finger on the red button?

An alleged discussion on nukes attracted new criticism for Trump: Trump asks why US can't use nukes.

In the 2008 debates, Romney, Giuliani, and Duncan Hunter all stated that using tactical nukes was an option. Duncan Hunter even endorsed preemptive nuclear strikes. Not only weren't they called madmen; Romney survived to become the nominee in 2012 and the presumed #NeverTrump candidate in 2016.

In 2008 John "Fit for the White House" McCain sang a song parody: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." He has also said we could stay in Iraq for 100 years, has antagonized multiple world leaders, and has championed nearly every military intervention of the last 25 years (including Iraq, the biggest catastrophe of them all). He was almost the GOP nominee twice.

Mainstream GOP foreign policy has been rabid and unhinged for years. Trump's mistake on nukes is saying the "right" thing the "wrong" way. After Trump's defeat, the 2020 Republican hopefuls will continue the same fanged rhetoric without attracting the slightest notice.

Five Reasons #NeverHillary Won't Succeed

1) You know all those Sanders supporters vowing to stay home if Hillary wins the nomination? Plenty won't make good on their promise. With all the "Trump's a fascist" hysteria being ginned up, a significant number will be guilt-tripped into hitting the polls. "Social Justice" being today's religious fundamentalism, these folks will line up so they can proudly tell Facebook they "stopped fascism."

Clinton did extremely well in critical states like PA and OH. There is no scenario where Trump takes California, so even if Sanders wins there, it means nothing. Sanders' leaving might tip West Virginia to Trump, but that's about it.

Bernie's fans will not vote Green or Libertarian or any other spoiler parties. The Nader in 2000 narrative will be sprayed around like mace at a Trump rally. Any third-party protest vote will more likely come from aggrieved Republicans, denting Trump (albeit only slightly).

But what about:

Among self-declared Sanders supporters, 20 percent said they would support Trump over Clinton in a general election match-up, up from 10 percent who said so in a March poll. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, Clinton barely led Trump, by 45 to 42 percent, compared with a 64 to 25 percent lead in March.
Bernie fans won't flock to Trump in large numbers. Wait until Bernie is gone and it's just Trump vs. Clinton without any distractions. Wait until Trump starts launching daily zingers about the Webster Hubbell rumors, Whitewater, Lewinski, Bill's alleged lovechild, you name it. Bernie supporters will have nothing to focus on but Trump's antics. Their dislike of Trump will cancel their disdain for Hillary's anointment.

2) The rise of hard right parties in Europe will be used to heighten the "Trump is Hitler" panic and sway fence-straddlers to vote Hillary. The supposed rise of European fascism will embolden voters unable to even name the Heads of State of the countries where this alleged fascism is returning, because those voters JUST KNOW something they aren't supposed to like is happening someplace they've never even vacationed. Take that, party/politician/country I've never heard of!

Any gaffe, skirmish, scandal (sounds like a decent board game) from Front National, AfD, etc. will get manifestly more coverage stateside than would occur outside of Trump season, and the subtext to the coverage will be: "Don't let it happen here by electing The Donald."

3) When the Brexit vote fails, the West's "anti-establishment" wave will receive its first mortal blow. I think Brexit will fail by no fewer than five percentage points, pricking some of the air from the "We're taking back our country!" wave broiling in Western nations. You can be sure there will be a massive intellectual and legal crackdown following this failed vote to ensure nothing similar happens again.

When Scotland was supposedly going to vote out, suddenly you were hearing about breakaway movements in spots like Northern Italy and Catalonia. Once "Free Scotland" failed, you stopped hearing about "the fracturing of Europe." Brexit's flopping will have a similar cooling effect on American rages against the machine.

4) President Obama is leaving on a high note.

Unlike the 2014 elections, the President will be an asset - a major asset - this time around. Don't take my word for it:

But amid what has become a vicious 2016 campaign, the public is growing fonder of Obama. His approval ratings have been 50 percent or higher for 11 of the past 12 weeks, a level he hadn’t hit in more than three years. His current rating -- 51 percent for the week ended May 22 -- is two points higher than Ronald Reagan’s was at this phase of his presidency, according to Gallup data.
Going back to 1952, the incumbent party won the largest share of the popular vote in nine out of 10 elections in which the sitting president had an average job approval rating of at least 48 percent

Hillary is closely tied to the once again popular president, and he will almost certainly do a first-rate job of selling her. He will speak at the convention, and being the first black president, there will be an explicit narrative of: "In 2008 we made history, let's be sure we don't elect someone on the wrong side of history."

When he says those exact words at the convention, tell your friends you read them here first.

And a bonus...

5) Republican organization will remain spotty. Bill Kristol's "resistance" will be far less influential than his addled mind believes, but there will be enough disunity and sabotage within the party to disrupt Trump's "ground game." Ryan finally came around to "endorsing" Trump: it means nothing. Not only did it take forever, but Trump's buzz rests upon running against Washington hacks like Ryan.

Think about the convention. How many high-profile Republicans will risk their careers by speaking? Picture those who would accept such a socially incriminating invite, how much broad appeal will they likely possess? Carl Icahn won't do it, and if he did, imagine how poorly someone like him would go over in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Then there's Newt Gingrich...will that neutralize all the "Trump hates women" rumblings?

What kind of new all-time shocking quotes will emerge from Trumps's acceptance monologue? When the convention becomes a circus, the WHAT THE HELL WILL TRUMP's ADMINISTRATION LOOK LIKE question will be everywhere.

When faced with mayhem or mediocrity, eventually more than enough voters will choose mediocrity. Even without mayhem, the makeup of the electoral college now makes Democratic presidents all but inevitable. Just ask Tofu in a Tie.

Second Place is the First Loser

"Perhaps the cruelest thing ever said of Hubert Humphrey was that he had the soul of a vice president." - Susan Estrich

The VP choice has higher stakes for Trump than for Hillary. Ross Perot, the last outsider with a significant campaign, was seriously damaged by his choosing Stockdale. When running as an outsider without a political track record, your first political selection matters more than someone who has been in the system, particularly when you’re someone like Trump who is trying to convince lots of people he is serious.

That said, the presumption of electoral college gains from VP selections isn’t supported by much evidence; even in relatively close elections.

Ryan didn’t deliver Wisconsin for Romney.

Edwards didn’t deliver NC for Kerry.
Bentsen didn’t deliver TX for Dukakis.

Agnew didn’t deliver MD for Nixon.

Warren didn’t deliver CA for Dewey.

Kemp didn’t deliver NY for Dole.

The list goes on.

Shriver didn’t deliver MD for McGovern (which traditionally goes Democrat), and Ferraro couldn’t even deliver NY for a Democrat, which demonstrates the broader point: In terms of a VP choice having the power to buck the predominant voting trend, VPs aren’t that relevant.

Only a Proven Loser can Keep the GOP from Losing

I'm having a good laugh about this talk of installing Paul Ryan as GOP candidate through a "brokered" convention. Ryan didn't even carry Wisconsin for Mitt Romney. All the arguments being made in favor of Ryan were made verbatim about Jeb before his campaign started, and we see how that is working out. There isn't real appetite for establishment candidates among Republican voters.

If something technical were done to deny Trump (or Cruz) the nomination the backlash against the GOP establishment would go nuclear, so Ryan would get harangued daily by populist GOP media (not to mention MSNBC, NYT, etc.), making his eventual defeat extra ignominious. Whomever gets the nomination loses to Hillary anyway, it is just a question of whether the establishment finds a way to feel good about their loser.

As for Ryan's new beard, as sociologist Jimmy the Greek noted, women don't trust candidates with facial hair. Ryan would probably make a decent personal trainer, but is out of his depth in any other field. He won't stop Trump from combing over the competition.

Is Donald Trump the New Wendell Wilkie?

To the horror of many who buy into the sacrosanctness of elections, the Donald Trump phenomenon hasn't fizzled out. Although one might compare him to recent previous businessmen who ran - Herman Cain and Mitt Romney - I think a better comparison can be made to the 1940 Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Wilkie.

Similarities:

Both had business backgrounds (though there were no such things as Wilkie Ties, Wilkie Vodka, Wilkie Water)

Both not supported by establishment Republicans

Both were former Democrats

Both not particularly religious (Trump talks about being Presbyterian, but when you hear the word Trump, church doesn't come to mind...exact maybe confession...)

Both were big talkers who energized people, in sharp contrast to their stodgy competition (if third chins could talk, they'd be Jeb Bush)

Although both were "outsiders" who rode populist waves, both were obviously not salt of the earth people (Wilkie's nomination was said to come "right from the grass roots of every country club in America.")

Wilkie was running Roosevelt's third term, Trump is running against a potential third Bush or Clinton term.

Both had quite crazy hair.

Wilkie and Trump aren't a perfect match, of course. The worst strike against Wilkie - his flip-flopping and eventual tacit embrace of Roosevelt's policies - are closer to Mitt "not a Reagan Republican except when I need to be seen as a Reagan Republican, pay no attention to Romneycare" Romney.

In the end Wendell Wilkie became very unpopular. I think Trump is headed for the same fate.

Why Twitter has made Vice Presidents Irrelevant

To the extent that federalism still exists - and it's a reach to say it still does - social media is rapidly poaching what survives of it. Indiana recently passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Alabama recently passed its Freedom of Religion in Marriage Protection Act, and the national social media apparatus put so much pressure on those governments the laws were quickly defanged by the online maelstrom.

This phenomenon is only going to grow more powerful.

For all the talk of dysfunction in politics and the country being more divided than ever, there is an airtight consensus on the social issues among the nation's power brokers. This has been proven time and again since sites like Twitter and Gawker grew from novelties to sniper rifles. Doesn't matter how traditional Indiana might want to be. Its officials and businesses cannot withstand the instantaneous human wave attacks.

So with federalism fully dead and the national consensus flattening any differences from state to state, the importance of having a VP from a swing state is null and void. No matter how popular he is at home, if he dissents the coast-to-coast digital derision will soon make him a goat at home. You can select Marco Rubio as VP thinking you'll get Florida, but his stances on abortion and the Indiana law would swirl around his head like radioactive gnats. Every little gaffe on the campaign trail would be traced back to those stances and votes, probably on a daily basis. The national media/social media scrutiny (with power broker reinforcement) would prevent him from carrying Florida for whomever the presidential candidate was. A Jeb/Rubio ticket might carry Florida, but otherwise no chance.

Ryan didn't carry Wisconsin for Romney, Walker wouldn't do any better, Portman wouldn't deliver Ohio for anyone (voted against partial birth abortion for starters), Santorum wouldn't deliver Pennsylvania. The list goes on. The intersection of the power broker consensus with the cost free bully pulpit of social media makes it impossible to step outside whatever this afternoon's standard is for acceptable debate (don't get comfortable, it will change by dinner time).

Having someone like Perry or Cruz as VP (not that it would happen) isn't necessary to help carry Texas because Texas is still a sort of American Switzerland; remaining relevant even as it stands somewhat outside the consensus. This won't last forever of course.

The power broker consensus is making it less and less possible to "vote with your feet." Any openings for state-level legislative arbitrage are pretty much gone. In three or four years you won't even need the caveat of "pretty much."

The old adage was that all politics is local. Social media (and political correctness) means now all politics is national.

Why the various "Republican saviors" won't save anything

The Republican contenders for 2016 have already been picked by the media. Who is going to take on Hillary, the pundits wonder? With the current international political turmoil - Mideast, Russia, etc. - the media tells us a Republican hawk will have plenty to run on. I can't tell if the media is actually that detached from the facts or they just need to create some phony suspense about 2016 so that people will keep paying attention to them.

Foreign policy matters very, very, very little to Americans. To understand foreign policy requires understanding that there are such things as foreign countries, and that is a tall order for most Americans (including so-called "political junkies"). Obama has merrily continued many Bushian military blunders and launched a few of his own. Most Americans aren't even aware of these debacles, and those who are only care if they identify as Republican. As for the "it's the economy, stupid" chestnut: NO IT ISN'T, STUPID. Social media has helped make the "social issues" the only issues that motivate people. Everyone, Republican or Democrat, is now a values voter. Even economic issues are now framed in terms of demographics.

With all that said, below is a list of why the various Republican contenders cannot win. The moment any of them ascend towards lasting relevance the policies/comments detailed below will go from media headlines to social media blitzkriegs.

Why Scott Walker won't be President:

Wisconsin governor Scott Walkers signs abortion bill requiring ultrasound

Why Rand Paul won't be President:

Discussion of Civil Rights Bills with Rachel Maddow

Why Rick Perry won't be President:

Court upholds Texas abortion law, closing 13 clinics

Why Chris Christie won't be President:

New Jersey Defunds Planned Parenthood

Why Mike Pence won't be President:

Pence on 'religious freedom' bill: 'I stand by this law'

Why Marco Rubio won't be President:

Marco Rubio wants to be lead sponsor on anti-abortionbil

Why Jeb Bush won't be President:

JebBush praises Mike Pence for 'religious freedom' law

These liabilities alone guarantee none of these "contenders" can win California, Massachusetts (all of New England except maybe New Hampshire and even that "Live free or die" state looks unpromising for Republicans), New York, Connecticut, New Jersey (yes, New Jersey - Chris Christie is going nowhere), Illinois. and Pennsylvania. Already that makes a Democratic victory almost inevitable. Presidents aren't decided by popular vote, and the only big red electoral state is Texas. All the other biggies are pretty well sewn up for Democrats regardless of the candidate. There will never be another pro-life (or even socially conservative) president, no matter how many bleach-toothed "electable" Republican messiahs the media tries to gussy up.

You might wonder why I didn't mention candidate Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz won't get elected because, well, he's Ted Cruz.

Do Hawkish Presidents Make Other Countries Dovish?

The last 18 months have been tough on Mr. Obama. His foreign policy seems to be taking nothing but left hooks to the liver.

Many of the 2016 GOP candidates have launched their campaigns by telling everyone how unlike Obama they will be on foreign policy. "The President is weak!" so the narrative goes.

I hate to defend a politician, but back when megahawk Bush was in office, Russia still aggressed outside its borders - anyone remember the 2008 Georgia crisis? Bush tsked-tsked Putin, and then presidential candidate McCain threw out plenty of harsh rhetoric. And it wasn't all talk; W. Bush had spent eight years throwing soldiers and bombs at various "evildoers." None of those displays of aggression kept Putin in check.

If anything, the War in Iraq showcased the flaws of interventionism; it showed a weak U.S. If Reagan had gotten mired in prolonged conflicts as stupid at the Second Iraq Invasion, would he be remembered as having "won the Cold War?" Bush's adventurism showed a U.S. that once again couldn't win a war of containment (containing communism in Vietnam and containing terrorism in Iraq)...so what exactly was Putin supposed to fear?

Allegedly wimpy Obama attacked Libya (now a failed state) without authorization, another Rubicon moment in a long list of them. He also didn't hesitate to intervene in Pakistan and Yemen (now a failed state), This didn't keep Putin or anyone else from doing what most politicians do; intervene abroad to create a "strong leader" narrative at home. The fact that Putin flouted the world under both "War on Terror" Bush and "My Red Line Keeps Moving" Obama probably tells us something about assuming a tough-guy president will necessarily convince other world leaders to play nice.

The Many Colors of the Hypocrisy Rainbow

US Sen Rubio Sees New Hope for Venezuela Sanctions

[T]he lawmaker said more action is needed to punish President Nicolas Maduro's government.

"I hope we can achieve something much stronger than what the White House has done so far," Rubio, speaking in Spanish, told journalists.

Republican (and Democratic pundits) have been in love with Florida Senator Marco Rubio for a long time. He can bring new voters to the party. He can show the nation that the Republican party can be a party of inclusion! His last name ends in a vowel!

You'll notice no one blazoning Rubio bothers highlighting his policy platform. That's because his platform is a carbon copy of the pinker Republicans he is supposed to be the antidote to.

Rubio tows the party line on abortion.

Tows the party line on minimum wage

Tows the party line on domestic surveillance.

Tows the party line on gay marriage.

Same foreign policy as rich old Anglo Romney. As you've seen with his views on sanctioning Venezuela, or with staying tough on Cuba, his, uh, roots haven't softened his tone on engagement with Latin America.

So what makes him so different and refreshing? He's olive-ish. It is as cynical as that. Take a candidate who regurgitates everything Romney says, give him a tan and suddenly The Content of His Character takes a backseat (several rows behind Rosa Parks) to The Color of His Skin.

If the difference isn't race, what is the difference? A losing platform said in Spanish is still a losing platform.

As much as the Establishment Left accuses the Establishment Right of using racial whistle words, when it comes to unambiguous ethnic chauvinism, the Establishment Left talks more tribalism than a Jerry Springer Klan guest. The only reason Rubio, a clone of the "too white" Romney is a darling is because of his ethnicity.

The Left regularly asserts (with sometimes hilarious accuracy) that fierce "family values" advocates are secretly gay. You don't need x-ray vision to see that the fiercest "anti-racism" police are often the most race obsessed people of all.

Why do articles about diversity lack diversity?

New York asks: What's the Matter with Connecticut?

Well, New York says Connecticut is an unequal place. Plus it apparently still suffers from a dreaded WASP plague (not to be confused with the locust kind). From the article:

Representing the R half of the equation is Fairfield County, home to an extraordinary concentration of money-management businesses and many of Connecticut’s one percenters. It’s a pretty, Waspy place, Wall Street’s buttoned-up suburb.

As we all know from years of hackneyed articles like this, WASPy is always shorthand for buttoned-up. When you see WASP in an article, it only has one implication: Those fair-skinned Episcopalians just don't know how to cut loose! It sucks when DEAD WHITE MEN aren't dead.

But predictable anti-WASP inferences aside, let's examine the demographics of Fairfield County. From Wikipedia, here are the demographics of its five most populous towns:

Rank	Town		Population	White	Black	Asian	American Indian	Other	Hispanic
1	Bridgeport	City	143,412	49.8%	35.9%	3.9%	0.6%	11.8%	36.7%
2	Stamford	City	121,784	61.0%	15.5%	8.7%	0.3%	16.3%	24.4%
3	Norwalk	City	85,145	77.2%	14.0%	4.3%	0.6%	6.0%	20.2%
4	Danbury	City	80,101	74.2%	8.7%	6.5%	1.2%	13.0%	25.1%
5	Greenwich	Town	61,023	87.1%	2.3%	7.6%	0.2%	3.9%	9.0%

Bridgeport is less than 1/2 white. Hispanics comprise at least 1/5 of the population in four of these towns. And there seems to be a fair bit of OTHER.

Pieces like this also forget or just ignore that the P in WASP stands for Protestant. Yeah, about that: of the Fairfield residents with a religious affiliation, 70% identify as Catholic, which is, you know, sort of what Protestants were protesting by becoming Protestants. 

“Connecticut ranks among the highest, and possibly the highest, in total unfunded pensions and retiree health care per taxpayer in the nation.” 

CT may be the “most unequal state in the country,” but not because it’s a tax haven; CT has the third highest tax rates in America. Underfunding is the result of fantastical projections/promises made by sociopathic politicians and bureaucrats (some of whom, it turns out, aren't WASPs!). I wonder if the writer will bother reconsidering the premise that high taxation leads to broader distributions of wealth...

And though this isn't stated in the article, buttoned-up and WASP is typically shorthand for "conservative" (see the 1,000,000^15 articles scrutinizing Orange County's demographics). Probably worth pointing out that Fairfield hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential election since 1996. Connecticut hasn't gone to a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.

Nothing is stuffier and more button-up than articles decrying the perils of the now completely imaginary WASP elite.

Nixon-Kennedy: Out with the old, in with the almost as old

JFK's oft-celebrated youth is one of the reasons he became a teen idol. Unlike ancient Eisenhower, Kennedy didn't look like a guy with breath like Tutankhamen's, and wasn't known to be as fragile (though he was quite fragile). What better symbol of the dawning of America's dominance in the world than a nubile chap as young and vibrant as our country was said to be.

Ointment, meet fly: Nixon was only four years older (and far more physically capable than the infirm Kennedy), yet the way the 1960 election is discussed you'd think Nixon was old enough to have been best man at Henry VIII's first wedding.

Not so with Kennedy; he probably used a fake ID! He may as well have ridden a surfboard into office. Youth man, that's what JFK was about. I mean, the hit music of Nixon's youth was soooo Duke Ellington, while the hit music of Kennedy's youth was, uh, also Duke Ellington...

Kennedy and Nixon were so close in age their lives overlap. Nixon was in law school at the same time Kennedy was entering Harvard. Both were in WWII. Both won their first election the same year. But even today, with the zeal of Kennedymania five decades behind us, the Kennedy youth narrative of that election endures, facts schmacts.

But even if 47-year-old Nixon had beaten 43-year-old Kennedy, it still wouldn't have been a standout occurrence. There were several under-50 Presidents:

Teddy Roosevelt assumed office at 42 after McKinley intercepted a bullet, but was elected in his own right at an embryonic 46.
Grant was 46
Cleveland was 47 (one of the very few non-prostitutes to become President)
Pierce was 48
Polk was 49
Garfield was 49.

Not shocking no one noticed this. To most people history started yesterday. They vote for politicians the same way they vote for laundry detergent.

In some areas Nixon was closer to the image of the new, vibrant America. He was a social and economic outsider who gnawed his way into elite circles. Kennedy was...well, a Kennedy. If his blood were any bluer he'd look like Veruca Salt.

Nixon was from California; a then emerging locus of power in America. "Young, vibrant, new blood" Kennedy was from Massachusetts; America's Old World.

You can't even say Kennedy was a fresher face in politics; they'd been in office the same length of time.

The punchline is you're only as old as you make people think you are; not even Wikipedia can outrun a narrative.*




*The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance concerns a politician and is the finest dramatization of the power of narratives I've seen.


My Twitter feed is old and new and borrowed and blue: https://twitter.com/greatMikePayne

Are we nearing WWIII?

Says The Atlantic:

Instability in Ukraine, chaos in Syria, conflict in the East China Sea—the trigger points for World War III are in place.

Pessimism is a useful prism through which to view the affairs of states. Their ambition to gain, retain, and project power is never sated. Optimism, toward which Americans are generally inclined, leads to rash predictions of history’s ending in global consensus and the banishment of war. Such rosy views accompanied the end of the Cold War. They were also much in evidence a century ago, on the eve of World War I.

Then, as now, Europe had lived through a long period of relative peace, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Then, too, rapid progress in science, technology, and communications had given humanity a sense of shared interests that precluded war, despite the ominous naval competition between Britain and Germany. Then, too, wealthy individuals devoted their fortunes to conciliation and greater human understanding. Rival powers fumed over provocative annexations, like Austria-Hungary’s of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, but world leaders scarcely believed a global conflagration was possible, let alone that one would begin just six years later. The very monarchs who would consign tens of millions to a murderous morass from 1914 to 1918 and bury four empires believed they were clever enough to finesse the worst.

The unimaginable can occur. That is a notion at once banal and perennially useful to recall. Indeed, it has just happened in Crimea, where a major power has forcefully changed a European border for the first time since 1945.

I could write an identical article about the trigger points of the late ‘90s.

The late '90s saw the onset of a technological revolution – the Internet – which launched a wave of prosperity and a far greater ability for nations and cultures to integrate. Velvet Revolutions were fresh in the memory. The Evil Empire had fallen. Happy days abounded.

Then in ’98, Russia, whose relatively new openness to the world was on very shaky legs, defaulted on its debt and slid into crisis. The default had a contagion effect that stung Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine (where they experienced the kind of hyperinflation that causes revolutions).

Other countries in that neighborhood – Romania, Hungary - were also still on very shaky legs after emerging from the fog of totalitarianism. Oh, and there was that whole Yugoslav chaos in the background. NATO eventually intervened in Kosovo, less than a year after Russia's default, the same NATO H.W. Bush promised wouldn’t expand towards Russia (oops)!

So many former enemies quaking with turmoil, so many people whose point of reference was authoritarianism suddenly feeling tumult and desperation during their transition to relative freedom. Perfect petri dish for a widespread rise of STRONG MEN. Perfect breeding ground for authoritarianism, revolution, and warfare that ripples and ripples. OH MY GOD THE END WAS NIGH!

Things were bleak, but WWIII didn’t happen. Of course it CAN happen; it can ALWAYS happen, but  pieces like these (which have been everywhere this year) are closer to cold reading than they are to political analysis. People didn't talk like this in '98 because it wasn't the centennial anniversary of the War to End All Wars.

Right now I’m not as worried about the rise of nationalism as I am about the rise of commentaries (and documentaries) that cause the impressionable to spot WWI and WWII analogies around every corner.

Assassination is a young man's game

Two things you don't see often in this life: Bon vivants who listen to the Cure and middle-aged assassins.

Czolgosz was 28 when he killed President McKinley.

Gavrilo Princip was 19 when he killed Archduke Ferdinand.

Hinckley was 25 when he shot Reagan.

Yigal Amir was 25 when he killed Yitzhak Rabin.

Wilkes Booth was 26 when he killed Lincoln.

Lynette Fromme was 26 when she tried to kill Gerald Ford.

Arthur Bremer was 22 when he shot George Wallace (Travis Bickle was partly modeled on Bremer*).

Sirhan Sirhan was 24 when he killed RFK.

Mehmet Ali Agca was 23 when he shot Pope John Paul II.

Mohammad Bokharaei was all of 17 when he killed Iranian Prime Minister Hassan Ali Mansur.

If Stefan Wisniewski killed Germany's Attorney General Siegfried Buback, he did it the day before his 24th birthday.

Giuseppe Zangara was 32 when he killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak while attempting to shoot FDR.

Truman's failed assassins were 36 and 20.

van der Graaf, who was 32 when he killed Pim Fortuyn, was an elder statesman of the assassination racket.

Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry was also long in the tooth, being almost 35 when he tried killing De Gaulle.

The reason assassins are usually mere babes (particularly when it comes to random "lone gunmen"): is obvious: Young people are romantic, and only a pie-in-the-sky romantic sacrifices himself to commit a murder that in 99% of cases alters very little. If the killing of Franz Ferdinand led the way to WWI, it was the exception.

People in their 40s and 50s might care about politics, but in addition to being less romantic about the world they usually also have more to live for; kids, spouses, mistresses, etc. A 22-year-old guy is living for beer and Transformers 5; hardly impenetrable walls against foolish revolution attempts.

Even when assassinations involve teamwork the organizations behind them normally rely on wide-eyed youngsters to commit the actual violence. The heads of these organizations know it ain't easy getting a boomer to try a low percentage act of terror that will change nothing and end with his facing a firing squad.

When you're young you feel much more strongly about revenge; even if it is macro revenge, the kind you take against political figures. Plus young folks are more likely to harbor a sense of destiny; they compare themselves to Great Ones much more often than oldies. Someone who thinks he's destined for greatness is going to be far more inclined to TAKE ONE FOR HISTORY.

By the time you're older you're more aware that nothing changes. This is why young people, including the non-assassins, do most of the marching and screaming. They're too young to know no one is listening.





*Behind every would-be "great man" is a woman who said no.

Will Obama be remembered as worse than W?

Poll: Obama 'worst president' since World War II

According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, those surveyed consider Obama worse than W. Bush; worse than any President since the Axis called it a day.

Whether it's getting elected or securing a legacy, the mechanics of politics are the same: It isn’t about what you do, or even about what you say; it is about the feeling you give people when you speak. Reagan is seen as a fiscal hawk, yet he ran deficits that would have embarrassed Lyndon Johnson. But he made people feel good when he spoke, so no amount of evidence can erase the memory of his tough but empty talk on government spending.

 

Clinton signed a “tough on crime” bill, and presided over and SIGNED the Defense of [hetero] Marriage Act, but because he made people feel good when he spoke he has the image of a benign, progressive liberal.

 

Obama makes a lot of people feel good, so in the long run, he will be remembered more favorably than W, who didn’t even make himself feel good.

 

It's not the economy, stupid

Have you heard: right now there is a "struggle for the heart of the Republican Party." The call has gone out for a Moderate Messiah, and the Republican establishment is pushing Jeb Bush hard. The messiah's ostensible mission: Forget the social issues and focus on the economy!

The reality is the Republican version of social issue politics and economic politics will fail at the ballot box.

Ladies and gentlemen of the calculatorless establishment: we have an electoral college, and the social issues are liabilities in every important electoral state except Texas. They are such liabilities that the mere whiff of a pro-life bent automatically disqualifies you. Though they don't realize it and gleefully mock Red Staters for their steadfast commitment to social issues, left-leaning US voters are just as much culture war/single issue voters as Republicans.* You hear progressives talking "social justice" more often than you hear them mentioning fiscal issues. 

And for progressives, especially today's young ones, it isn't enough for the culture to morph towards a flavor that accommodates their predilections. "Social justice" isn't justice until it is sanctified by the government (don't look for a movement, even a fake one, touting "live and let live" progressivism), which denudes any crossover with faux "libertarian" Republicans; including semi-genuine ones like Rand Paul. Today young people endorse live and let live...as long as you live the way they tell you you can live, and as long as the state gives it a tax-laden thumbs up! The state is all too happy to do this.

But wait, isn't it all about "jobs, jobs, jobs?" No it isn't. The fiscal conservatism pitch about creating jobs through reduced regulation and taxes has a .08% chance of resonating with young voters. Many of today's young voters have never had steady jobs and expect the government to rectify this through increased laws and spending.** They feel they're owed home ownership, student loan relief, etc. They don't expect to become the Steve Jobs heirs apparent Paul Ryan pinched his dimples about. Progressives/young people associate the economy with the government. Telling them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is just north of pointless. The Republican strategy of instructing voters to emulate "our most productive citizens," by which they mean the wealthier, also isn't going to stir young voter hearts.

If Republicans try to capture these voters by campaigning in favor of more activist government, it will merely brand them as slightly more "socially conservative" Democrats (which is actually what they are now). Who are young people and progressive-leaning independents going to trust in such an scenario?

As for old people: they don't care about jobs; they care about being able to retire from jobs. They feel no guilt about sticking someone else with the bill.

Saying "Focus on the economy, it's a no-brainer" could only be said by a no-brainer.


*This isn't my Republican Party!...not shocking that when there is a movement to shift the party leftward on social issues the media can't get enough of "rebellious Republicans." When there was a chorus of anti-Iraq invasion/anti-War on Terror conservatives, the media was strangely uninterested in hearing them out.

**Extended adolescence combined with scant real world experience only increases one's zealotry for fundamentalist social justice religion.

On "Decisive Elections"

The Obamacare controversy is lingering like a pre-existing condition. I've heard politicians and professional opiners say the 2012 Presidential election "settled" this controversy, meaning the discussion is over and we just have to live with whatever they give us.

Oh really? So because a politician wins, everything on his agenda should glide through unobstructed? Every election is an across the board referendum on every plan the winning politician has?

Why even have a Congress then? Why not just hold the Presidential election and let the winner unilaterally enact laws as he sees fit? If we're supposed to interpret elections this way there is no need for checks and balances.

To those now proclaiming the 2012 election "settled" Obamacare:

Would they have said the 2004 election "settled" the controversy about the Iraq War?

If the supposedly* pro-life W. Bush had outlawed abortion, would they have shrugged and said: "Oh well, I guess America has spoken! Looks like I'm carrying this one night stand souvenir to term."

Did the gay marriage advocates call it a day after Bush's "decisive" victory raised the prospect of a constitutional amendment to fortify the blockade against gay marriage? Are they giving up the fight in states where the governor has come out against it?

Keine Möglichkeit, Josef!

We have checks and balances to prevent Presidents from governing like dictators (not that it works). A presidential election is not supposed to be a rubber stamp on whatever the President feels like doing. But of course, both sides cherry pick which measures the voters "decided on." It is only a "decisive election" when there is a controversial measure you want to see become a reality.

Declaring it a "decisive election" to silence dissent sounds like a throwback to Nixon's "When
the President does it that means it is not illegal" defense. I don't even know why people are horrified by Nixon's statement. Both sides agree with it when the law is broken by the person they voted for.

 

It is only going to get worse. The federal government is more involved in our lives than ever, and each election raises more "issues" about our personal lives than ever before. Because we've acquiesced to this increased federal meddling, each election is going to be more shrill and "decisive." By 2020 the Presidential oath is going to be: "I do solemnly swear that I will bring a WINNER TAKE ALL approach to the Office of the President of the United States. After each of my whims becomes law I will perform end zone dances to the best of my ability. So help me Me."

 

 

*Republicans only talk the pro-life talk because they know there are millions of gullible single issue voters who will blindly support them so long as they pretend to be pro-life. The Republicans are just as hell-bent on keeping abortion legal as the Democrats, because the phony "fight against" abortion is what keeps the checks and votes coming in. Here's a bumper sticker for ya: "There is no fool like a voting social conservative fool."

Putting a businessperson in the White House won't give us a "CEO in Chief"

Wanna hear a joke?

Unemployment is high in America.

How high is it?

It's so high even the dishonest government measurement of unemployment clocks it above 7%. Oh, and yo' mama so fat they count her as two unemployed people.

In a time of high unemployment and flagrant government oafishness like Obamacare, it isn't surprising to hear murmurings about how we "need a businessperson in office." He'll know how to get the economy going! Romney tried leaning on this, and for years Donald Trump had used it to generate publicity.

Businesspeople can't improve the government. Part of the reason businesspeople can achieve things is because they don't have to get votes. Businesspeople only have to provide products. They don't have to whisper sweet nothings in consumers' ears. You can be unlikable and still monumentally successful as long as people like your products. See Steve Jobs.

Politicians have to sugarcoat. They have to whisper sweet nothings. They have to appear likeable. Politicians themselves are the product. That means is they have to lie constantly. The "which candidate would you rather have a beer with" matters big time. In 2008, apart from the media's pornographic love affair with the symbolism of Barack, I think a big part of his prevailing is that every non-lesbian (and probably most lesbians) would rather drink with Barack than Hillary. Barack is probably an interesting enough guy to have a Guinness with. Hillary is lame enough to turn wine into seltzer.

Also, when a CEO promises a new iPhone, he actually has to deliver a new iPhone. He can't not provide one and then just claim he did. He won't have a million propagandizing media subnormals working 'round the clock to convince the nation he provided this nonexistent iPhone. People will notice the lack of a new iPhone and punish him by buying his competitors' phones.

A politician can say he's going to do something like close Gitmo and then simply not do it. Almost nothing ever happens when a politician breaks a promise. People are trained to expect broken promises from politicians (or at least politicians who aren't members of "their" party). CEOs and businesspeople don't have this luxury. If anything, folks are trained to complain vociferously to businesspeople ("the customer is always right"). Therefore, businesspeople have to follow up to some extent on their promises, or else customers and activist shareholders will topple them. See JC Penney.

Once a politician is in office, he is there for at least two years. Unlike a CEO, you're stuck with him. Sometimes you're stuck with him for four or six years, so he can go right on lying for his entire reign, and there is nothing that can be done about it. A businessperson's approval rating results in immediate profits and losses, and he can be put out of business or fired from the CEO position in a matter of months, not years. Parties of all political persuasions are always complaining about voters' short attention spans. They're right. If a guy is in office six years there is plenty of time for each storm to blow over and be forgotten. In business, even a short term storm can topple someone in no time flat. If that businessperson could count on six years of tenure, chances are his sins would be forgotten the way they are for politicians.

CEOs and businesspeople almost never have the advantage of a monopoly. Government by its very definition is a monopoly. There is one DMV. There is one police force. You can only have two Senators in each state. There is no such thing as an upstart third, fourth, or fifth Senator who can suddenly appear and immediately start taking market share. There is no limit to how many different smartphone brands there can be, which is why CEOs and businesspeople must be nimble and responsive to customers if they are to survive. Government, and its mascots in the Congress and White House, is a monopoly, and it acts like one. A politician with the greatest business background still couldn't do anything to change the clumsy, unaccoutable nature of monopolies. The only thing he could do once in office is privatize everything, and forgetting for a moment that that is impossible under our current system, what politician is going to ride in and start diluting his own power by privatizing everything? The last President to use anti-government rhetoric was Reagan, and as we all know he greatly expanded the government.

By believing a businessperson is going to fix government, market-minded people are adopting the same defective mentality as the most anti-business egalitarian: assuming if we could just get the right person in there, things would be better. Wrong. The institution itself isn't fixable. Getting a different mascot to be its face won't render it fixable.

I've heard champions of the marketplace say it is the only real democracy, the only place where you truly have a voice. The reason that is so is because it is democracy without force. Government is nothing but monopoly and force. Government is democracy without the whole "having a voice" part.

A Question on Sanctions

A big media topic of late has been "comprehensive immigration reform." Talking heads keep saying increased immigration means increased economic growth; more people=more potential consumers, etc.

That same media goes right along with any suggestion of sanctions and penalties for countries like Iran. OK...if more consumers means more economic growth, doesn't cutting off the potential consumers of Iran and Cuba and Burma from US output also limit economic growth?

You might retort that the average Iranian or Cuban consumer isn't particularly prosperous. The same is true of many of the immigrants who would arrive in the US via comprehensive immigration reform. It's not like the Statue of Liberty says: "Send us your posh, your one-percenters, your moneyed masses yearning to spend freely." Far from it. So if the media doesn't consider the poverty of those migrating here an impediment, the poverty of those potential consumers in Iran, Cuba, and Burma shouldn't be used as an excuse to cut them off from American markets.

Don't expect anyone on TV to raise this point. The establishment media is firmly in favor of all forms of belligerence against "rogue states," especially those containing Arabs and Persians. When it comes to Americans and the Middle East, economics takes a back seat, and practical foreign policy analysis gets thrown in the trunk.