Canadian Cincinnatus

If not Donald Trump, then who?

Donald Trump is a mountebank and an unprincipled salesman. Think Trump University. As Ace of Spades notes (emphasis added):

“My problem with Trump is that he is a dealmaker trying to make a sale. Right now, he's trying to make a deal with conservatives -- so this is the very most conservative we'll ever see him.

If he gets the nomination, he now starts working on making the second part of the deal with the other party in the negotiations, the general public.

So this is the most conservative we'll ever see Trump -- this is the absolute most conservative he'll ever be -- and he's not conservative at all, except, possibly, on immigration. He combines liberal policy impulses with frankly authoritarian or even fascist ones, which he thinks are "what conservatives want," because, frankly, he conceives of us as ugly-minded, stupid dummies who get off on this shit.”

I think this analysis is spot-on. Trump is an unprincipled salesman in the process of making a sale. But he is also winning. So the question now becomes, who can stop him?

There are four other candidates in the Republican nomination race. Two of them are also-rans with no chance for victory. That leaves Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. At this point, if I were a betting man, I would put my money on Trump winning the nomination. But if he for some reason doesn’t, who is the second most likely?

To go forward with any credibility, I think the absolute minimum requirement is that you must be able to win your home state. If you can’t do that, then no one will take you seriously. In the case of Ted Cruz’s home state, Cruz is up on Trump by 8% in Texas, according to the Real Clear Politics poll averages. In the case of Marco Rubio’s home state, Rubio is losing to Trump by 20% in Florida, according to the Real Clear Politics poll averages. Since Florida is a winner-take-all state – unlike Texas - this will be a devastating blow to Rubio. If things keep going the way they are, Rubio will not win a single delegate in his home state. If this becomes the case, Rubio is toast.

This leaves Ted Cruz as the last non-Trump man standing. Can he do it? Can he go all the way? It is surely late in the day but it must be remembered that, to date, Trump has only won 80 delegates when 1,237 delegates are needed to secure the GOP nomination. In addition, because no Super Tuesday state is winner-take-all, Trump can’t win a disproportionate share of the delegates by simply coming out on top in every state. This buys Cruz some time.

Two other factors work in Cruz’s favour. First, the line of attack that Cruz and Rubio used on Trump at the last debate shows that it is possible to hit him effectively. There are many skeletons in Trump’s closet and until recently, they haven’t been touched. Being a crypto-liberal is only the most serious of those. In addition, Trump has the highest negatives among any candidate. As candidates drop out, Cruz’s hope is that more of their voters go to Cruz than Trump. Will this happen? I don’t know but I think it is within the realm of the possible.

Speaking of Ted Cruz, what should he do if he were to lose the nomination? While I don’t think Trump would offer him the VP slot, if I were advising Cruz, I would counsel him not to take it if it were offered. Cruz is a young man (age 45) and can afford to bide his time. The danger for him is becoming too closely identified with Trump. If Trump’s presidency were to become a failure, Senator Cruz would be in an ideal place four years from now to seek the nomination – but not Vice President Cruz. In any event, Trump will be 74 years old four years from now. Would there be any fight left in him any more?

None of this is sure-fire, but becoming the President of the United States is never a guaranteed prospect. Many things have to break your way. But I think if Cruz loses his time around to Trump, he can maximize his future chances if he distances himself from The Donald.

why tax cuts are no longer popular

In Bloomberg, Megan McArdle recently argued that tax cuts are no longer good politics for Republicans. She asserts that pro-growth politicians have painted themselves into a corner. This happened incrementally over decades. In order to sell each particular tax cut to the voter-rich middle-class, conservative legislators sweetened each pot by cutting their tax rates more than the tax rates of the rich. Because this has been done for each tax cut iteration, the overall effect has been to evolve the tax code towards a progressive direction over time. In the end, the tax cutters had undercut their own message by solving the tax problems of the middle class. As a result, the tax issue no longer resonates today with them.

To counter McArdle, I suspect pro-growth economists will argue that tax cuts are nevertheless still effective at stimulating economic growth, which brings prosperity to all. For this reason, tax cuts are still in the long-term interest of the middle-class even if they only directly affect the rich. They can point out that the tax rates of the rich have a much bigger impact on the economy than the tax rates for everybody else. This is because a larger percentage of their income is directed towards productive investment. The more this income stream is taxed away, the less money there is available for capital investment. In contrast, poor people invest very little. If they are taxed more, they will definitely feel the pain more acutely. But because they have no choice but to carry on as best they can no matter what, the overall effect of their tax burden for the economy-at-large will be small. Perversely, this means that the economic benefits of tax cuts have increased because the US tax code has become less hated.

So who is right, McArdle or the Club for Growth economists?

I argue that both are. This is because McArdle is talking about political policy, while the economists are discussing public policy. One is about winning elections; the other is about the economy. Unfortunately, there is no law of nature that requires good policies to also be good politically. Beneficial economic policies can repel voters as much as attract them.

The challenge for the conservative political strategist is to devise a way of winning elections while at the same time enacting good policy. I don’t think that this is an insoluble problem. In fact, I don’t think it is even a particularly difficult problem. The first step is to recognize the distinction.

McArdle posits a good suggestion on how to square the circle:

“Republicans may well be able to have tax cuts as an add-on to other things that actually promise benefits to that vast middle swathe of voters. But it can’t be the entrée, much less the whole meal.”

I think this is right. You must package tax cuts with a larger package of policies that are both consistent with free-market principles and widely popular at the same time. These are not hard to find. One would be a crackdown on crony capitalism, the system whereby businessmen connected to the government game the system. This is a good way of demonstrating that you are pro-free market rather than pro-business. (Of course, K-Street lobbyists won’t like this but hey, ask John Boehner what K-Street did for him lately.) Another would be to emphasize the importance of work and savings on economic success. The Protestant work ethic has long been appreciated in our culture and its champions are always welcome. Of course, going after the freeloaders on welfare is also both good politics and policy (particularly if you make sure to emphasize how similar they are morally to the Wall Street freeloaders). And this is just what I came up with on the spur of the moment. There is much more.

As an aside, one of the few mistakes in McArdle’s article is to lump deregulation in with tax cuts. The politics of overregulation are completely different. While it has been true that the deregulation issue has been very poorly sold by the Stupid Party, I don’t see any reason why this needs to continue. I think there are plenty of ways to sell deregulation. For instance, how about: deregulation = freedom. But that is a topic for another post

.

The Ghomeshi trial shows that the Canadian judicial system still works

What prompted this post is this article in Toronto’s 24-hr news radio station 680 News, entitled “Jian Ghomeshi’s trial highlights need for deep legal reform: lawyer”. Now I am not suggesting that you should listen to 680 News for deep thoughts, but it is a great place to go to see what the Mainstream Media’s current zeitgeist is, because 680 is both too stupid and too sane to deviate much from the received wisdom.

So why does the lawyer quoted by 680 News think our criminal justice system is broken?

“A Toronto lawyer who’s called for substantial reforms to how the legal system handles sexual assault cases says the Jian Ghomeshi trial shows that the adversarial model presently in place is ‘structurally ill-suited’ to deal with such allegations.

The current system is ‘basically trial by war.’”

The reason why our justice system involves ‘trials by war’ is that trials necessarily represent two irreconcilable interests: the interests of the guy who doesn’t what to go to prison, as well as the people who want to send him there. Non-adversarial criminal trials may sound superficially nicer but in practice will mean that one side will not be fairly represented. You either have kangaroo courts – where the rights of the accused are waived – or you have a paradise for criminals. I am old fashioned enough to not favour either option.

“That is probably the worst thing to do to complainants who are coming forward to talk about very intimate and distressing violations of their sexual integrity,” he said.

What about the distress that an innocent man will have to endure for the next ten years in a federal prison?

“The high-profile Ghomeshi case has seen witnesses alter their statements under relentless cross-examination that often focused on details of memories dating back more than a decade”

This is an interesting point, and illustrates the need for a statute of limitations on sexual assault. These cases, especially after an intervening decade, devolve into a question of he said – she said, with no physical evidence or corroborating testimony available for either side. If memories are as unreliable as has been demonstrated in the Ghomeshi trial, how can anybody be found guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt after a decade has passed?

“— a tactic deemed common among defence lawyers.”

This tactic is also common among prosecutors. This, because it is useful for separating truthful witnesses from perjurers and false accusers.

“Moving away from an adversarial model, I think, is going to be necessary because look at the Ghomeshi trial — who would voluntarily put themselves through that?”

Somebody with a desire for vengeance against a person who has done them grievous harm? Of course, that assumes, grievous harm has actually been inflicted.

“Canada’s legal system has made strides in the last few decades in trying to recognize the unique nature of sexual assault cases, including the implementation of rape shield laws that bar using a woman’s sexual history to discredit her.”

If the Ghomeshi trial illustrates anything at all, it is the absolute necessity of vigorous cross-examination. The testimony of every complainant was full of contradictions and fanciful stories that made no sense at all. If they hadn’t been exposed by cross-examination, what chance would Ghomeshi have to prove his innocence?

“Sexual violence is nonetheless often kept secret: a Statistics Canada survey found that only five per cent of sexual assaults were reported to police in 2014, a proportion consistent with previous studies.”

Really? So how do you go about counting something that is, by definition, unreported? I smell a statistical fish here - as well as another story about the corruption in our sciences.

What’s their solution?

“Creating a specialized court to deal with sexual assault cases, like those earmarked for young offenders or those accused with mental health issues, could help, although those tend to focus on the circumstances of the offender, Witelson said.”

A specialized court that focuses on the circumstances of the complainant? Sounds like a kangaroo court to me.

“In order to convict, the criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that is ‘almost impossible’ to meet, particularly in cases when the complainant and accused have an existing relationship, Butt said.

The civil system, meanwhile, needs only for one side to be more believable that the other, which increases the likelihood that someone will be held responsible, he said.”

See, what did I tell you. This validates what I said in my previous article:

“I also think this case points out how dangerous The Left really is. They demonstrate through their actions that they do not want justice at all - in any recognizable form of the word. What they want to do is to mete out group justice, like the way the Bolsheviks meted out group justice to the kulaks, or how Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge exterminated a third of Cambodia. If this assessment seem harsh, then let me ask you this: in what way is the feminist idea of justice in sexual assault cases different from communist persecution?”

You know, the social justice warriors are not going to stop. They are going to keep going until they achieve Pol Pot’s Year Zero. And green-eyeshades conservatives who just want to focus on ‘balancing the books’ while leave the messy, culture-war stuff to the Left, are inadvertently aiding and abetting them.

For this nonsense to stop, good men (and women) have to step up to the plate and stop them.

Another day, another discredited witness: tales from the Jian Ghomeshi trial

Just to lay my own prejudices on the table, I don’t like Jian Ghomeshi. First of all, I had never heard of him before his sex scandal. (I guess I just don’t watch enough government propaganda.) Then I found out that he was a CBC big shot and the kind of trendy person with all the right opinions. In addition, I also find revolting the rough sex that he says he favours.

Nevertheless, in spite of the dislike I feel for the man, I have come to think that he might be innocent (and boy, if I ever needed a criminal defence lawyer, I would want his lawyer). Why?

Mostly because the two complainants gave inconsistent testimony. They said one thing at the time, another to prosecutors and a third on cross-examiantion.  And they wait a decade before pressing charges, which they only did after Ghomeshi's sex life blew up in public.

The standard counterargument is that they were intimidated into silence because Ghomeshi is powerful and famous. I say hogwash. If they really had been horrifically assaulted by Ghomeshi, I don’t think anything would have held them back from seeking retribution.

Take the case of drunk driver Marco Muzzo, who recently killed three children and their grandfather in Vaughan. Do the parents of those kids act like they are intimidated by the Muzzo family, one of the richest in Canada, and who have vastly more money at their disposal than Ghomeshi? No. In contrast to Ghomeshi’s lovestruck accusers, these grieving parents are aggressively pursuing justice at every turn. They have become Marco Muzzo’s living nemesis. They aren’t scared of him. After all, what more can the Muzzo family do to them?

I think it is possible that Ghomeshi’s complainants feel that Jian Ghomeshi’s real crime was not that he hurt them, but that he dumped them. How much of this translates into criminal culpability on Ghomeshi’s part is another matter.

As far as the charge that Ghomeshi might get away with it because he is famous, I think his fame has hurt him more than it helped. If he were a Joe Schmoe, I don’t think this case would have ever seen the inside of a courtroom. The cops aren’t gullible. They know a weak case when they see it, but I suspect they were forced into filing charges by political pressure. And if the case falls apart in the courtroom then, hey, it’s not our fault. Too bad about the destruction of an innocent man’s life.

I suppose that some might charge me with automatically siding with men against women. Not so. I was livid about the sexual assaults and gang rapes that occurred in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. I was horrified by the Rotherham rape scandal cover-up. I was furious when CBS correspondent Lara Logan was gang raped and nearly ripped to pieces in Tahrir Square, and was even more furious with CBS News when they tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug because it clashed with the narrative about Arab Spring that they were pushing. For these sentiments, my critics might accuse me of being anti-Muslim. Oh? So why do I side here with Ghomeshi, a man of Iranian heritage?

Rather, I have a quaint notion of justice, one that is almost archaic these days. I believe that criminal cases should be judged solely on the basis of evidence, not on which demographic or political group the victim and the accused belong to, or on the issues dredged up by the trial.

I also think this case points out how dangerous The Left really is. They demonstrate through their actions that they do not want justice at all - in any recognizable form of the word. What they want to do is to mete out group justice, like the way the Bolsheviks meted out group justice to the kulaks, or how Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge exterminated a third of Cambodia. If this assessment seem harsh, then let me ask you this: in what way is the feminist idea of justice in sexual assault cases different from communist persecution?

For a good example of the latter, consider what this half-wit said in the National Post:

“I am concerned at the potential consequences if Ghomeshi were to be criminally acquitted.”

“An acquittal could have a concomitant ominous chilling effect. If his lawyer sufficiently embarrasses the accusers by suggesting they are lying, or through salacious revelations as to their sexual history, others will be less prepared to come forward with sexual harassment allegations.”

These words are written by a lawyer, in the middle of an ongoing trial. He - an officer of the court - appears to be openly rooting for a conviction for reasons that have nothing to do with Jian Ghomeshi’s actual guilt or innocence. I’m no legal expert, but isn’t the purpose of this trial – its only purpose – to determine Ghomeshi’s guilt? Oh, how I miss the days when Conrad Black still ran the Post.

Personally, I reserve final judgment until the trial is over because I don’t know what the remaining evidence will turn out to be, and I am not in the courtroom to see everything. 

I was right: Trump lost by promising to deal with Democrats

In Monday’s Iowa caucus, Donald Trump greatly underperformed. While I do believe some of that is due to his lack of ‘ground game’, something that was touted as Ted Cruz’s strength before the vote was taken, and which reporters have noted was almost completely absent in Trump’s Iowa campaign. But I don’t think that’s the entire explanation.

I think his failure was at least partly due to Donald Trump touting himself as a dealmaker. In my article on Jan 27, I opined:

“It comes as a surprise that Donald Trump has dissed Ted Cruz as somebody who can’t get along in Washington. He opined that he would make a better President than Cruz because he is willing to cut deals. This argument makes some sense but it is not what Republican voters want to hear. As they see it, the problem is not Washington “gridlock” nor is it Republican inability to “get along” with their Democrat counterparts, but rather it is that the Washington politicians (of both parties) come to too many mutually beneficial arrangements that screw regular Americans. The Gang of 8 Amnesty deal is the paradigmatic example, but so is the recent omnibus spending bill championed by Paul Ryan. In making this accusation against Cruz, Trump opened himself up to the charge that he is a pay-to-play Washington insider wannabe. Noted Democrat pollster Pat Caddell agrees with this assessment.”

I feared that Ted Cruz would not press home the attack on this opening created by Trump’s mistake. After Iowa, it looks like my fears were misplaced. That astute political observer, Rush Limbaugh, agrees.

I think this shows that success has gone to Trump’s head. He likes to think that his popularity is due to the alpha male mojo that he is projecting. While that is likely partly true, his stunning success (at least until Iowa) was also due to the fact that Trump has hitched his wagon to three pre-existing issues that the voters care about a great deal but which every other candidate had studiously ignored. In my essay dated Dec 29, I pointed out that these are:

“I see three underlying issues propelling Trump forward. In descending order of importance, they are: immigration, the GOP establishment, and Political Correctness.”

In touting his ability to make a deal, and bragging about his ability to get along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Trump completely undercut the second issue. At this point in time, the American voters don’t want a dealmaker. To them, the problem with Washington isn’t that there aren’t enough deals going on. Rather, they see an insular class all too eager to make self-serving bipartisan deals that cut the average person out of the loop. For a while, they saw Trump as a champion against all this - the brash outsider, rich enough to act independently. Now, as a result of his poorly thought-out attack on Ted Cruz, he accidentally reveals himself to be just another pay-to-play politician.

As well, by singling out Pelosi and Reid by name, he invites criticism on all of his other past dalliances. Just as when John Kerry made his Vietnam service fair game by attacking Bush for staying out of the Vietnam War. When you criticise, be careful what you wish for.

In the same article, I asked this question:

“While Trump has certainly shown far more political skill than his detractors give him credit for, I don’t think he would have skyrocketed to the top if he hadn’t hitched his ride to a number of pre-existing issues and trends. How much of this was deliberate strategy and how much pure luck I can only guess, but I suspect that Donald Trump is genuinely surprised by how well things are going.”

Well, I now have my answer. It is mostly pure luck. Unless and until Trump gets a grip on his ego, and genuinely reflects on the nature of his success, watch him fall further.

An interesting strategic analogy that illuminates Donald Trump’s campaign

Given our hypersensitive times, I first have to get the obligatory disclaimer out of the way. No, I am not making the claim that Donald Trump is morally equivalent to the violent psychopath who tried to take over the world. Furthermore, I would vigorously oppose anybody who made such an obscene claim. In a time less prone to moral panics than ours, this disclaimer would be unnecessary, as any rational person would see that I am only drawing a limited comparison. But we do no live in such times, so this legalistic boilerplate is required.

Having gotten the formalities out of the way, let’s get on with the analogy. It strikes me that Hitler’s initial success and Trump’s have a few things in common. Both threw away the rulebook, and flummoxed their enemies by being unpredictable. Because the established players only knew how to counter conventional strategies, they couldn’t respond.

Take the Rhineland crisis of 1936, when Hitler reasserted German control of the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler crossed the Rhine with a mere 19 battalions at a time when France could mobilize 100 divisions. Making the move even bolder, Germany had no military reserves because it had only recently reinstated the draft. The first group of conscripts hadn’t even graduated. The odds were so lopsided that a routine French training exercise almost stopped the Germans. They thought it might be a counterattack. Bill Whittle, in one of his Afterburner videos, claimed that a single French policeman standing resolutely on a bridge might have been able to prevent World War II. While this is surely an exaggeration, it is not much of one. In spite of all this, Hitler got away with it through bluff, audacity, and surprise. Everybody was caught flat-footed, even though they had ample means to stop him.

So far, Trump has been getting away with everything for the same reason: audacity, boldness, and novelty. Everybody hates Political Correctness, and everybody distrusts the bland, focus-grouped slogans mouthed by conventional politicians. Along comes Trump with his insults, his bold images, and his unscripted speeches. He is a breath of fresh air. Except to the consultant class, who are presented with an insoluble puzzle.

But with both, it is not just a willingness to roll the dice. Each has displayed genuine strategic skill. While it is commonplace to think of Hitler as a strategic nut, this was not initially true. As Sir Basil Liddell Hart points out, early on Hitler often outthought his generals - who were the best of the war. Take the Invasion of France. The generals planned to repeat World War I: go around the Maginot Line via Belgium and invade France from the north. But there was a junior corp commander, Erich von Manstein who proposed a brilliant twist. Pretend to do that by sending all the infantry up north. When the allied armies are invested there, push the panzer divisions through the undefended Ardennes forest. The general staff dismissed his plan because the Ardennes is completely unsuited to the tank warfare. But when von Manstein got a 30-minute audience with the Fuhrer, Hitler instantly saw the plan’s brilliance - which involved a double-bluff that would cut the allied armies off from Paris - and that the Ardennes move would work precisely because the path would be left unguarded.

In just the same way, Trump realized that the key to Republican victory was the immigration issue. He saw that immigration animates both core Republicans (who are enormously frustrated by their leaders) as well as many independents (like blue collar workers - also called Reagan Democrats). Like the German general staff, the GOP leadership was too immersed in details (in their case, catering to the donor class and their lobbyists) to see how the issue could blow the election wide open.

Interestingly, Hitler’s strategic sense turned sour over time. Why?

First, much of his early success was due to his willingness to roll the dice. But if one keeps on doing that, eventually the odds turn against you. While he could outperform his generals for a while, their measured competence and professionalism would win out in the long haul.

Take the Battle of Kursk, the world’s greatest tank battle. The Germans planned to encircle the Soviet’s Kursk salient with two pincer movements, one from the north and one from the south, and achieve a super-Stalingrad in reverse. The plan was sound but compromised because Russian intelligence knew all about it. Nevertheless, the southern pincer force, led by the same von Manstein almost broke through. I say almost, because at the decisive moment, a certain corporal in Berlin transferred von Manstein’s reserves to Sicily, which the allies had just invaded.

This decision was complete strategic folly. Sicily was a sideshow. Kursk was a must-win battle of gigantic proportions. In contrast, Sicily was at the end of a long mountainous peninsula, the ideal place to mount a protracted defence. His generals told him this, but by this point, Hitler was in la-la land. He had rolled the dice too often to remain lucky.

Both Hitler and Trump operate via emotional hunches rather than logic and reason. This can work brilliantly, but it depends heavily on your state of mind. When things are going well, your boldness can be innovative. But when your luck runs out, the emotional funk might inspire counterproductive lurches. Take Trump. A key part of The Donald’s selling point are his poll numbers, which he likes to trumpet. But what if they turn south? Will he then start to lash out unproductively (like Jeb)?

Another danger for Trump is that his bombastic style, once refreshing, begins to grate. The meme - that he really isn’t presidential - can quietly metastasize before springing to the fore, seemingly out of nowhere. Think Howard Dean.

Another crucial factor is that the enemy learns. They adapt to the new rules and get better leaders. As a result, the tactic of unpredictability brings diminishing returns over time. Chamberlain was replaced by Churchill, unconditional surrender replaced appeasement as the policy, and maximum effort - regardless of cost - became the method.

The implications for the Republican Party are obvious. In a not-to-be-missed interview by Breitbart on Sirius XM, Pat Caddell points out that it is no accident that the two leading GOP candidates do not employ beltway consultants. In contrast, Caddell points out Governor Scott Walker, an initially strong candidate, whose campaign was destroyed by Washington consultants who didn’t get him. Caddell asserts that the beltway strategists have no pulse on the people, and that their only tool is the attack ad. As Glenn Reynolds points out, all they do is copy what Lee Atwater did a quarter of a century ago, only with less skill. To beat Trump, Karl Rove, Steve Schmitt, Mike Murphy, and Mitt Romney’s etch-a-sketch guy have to go. The GOP needs new generals. They will get them (eventually).

Initially I liked Donald Trump’s candidacy for this reason. I thought (and still think) that his creative destruction will be good for the party in the long term. The GOP really needs to remove their corporate climbers. Real strategic acumen and a pulse on the body politic is more important that a pat on the back by Reince Priebus at the RNC cafeteria.

Will a more conventional – but not too conventional – candidate like Ted Cruz beat Trump in the end? I dunno. It may be too little too late. But I do think that while Trump’s critics have been wrong in underestimating him (as I have previously argued), his fans (such as Scott Adams) may be overestimating him.