I’m reading a lot both pro and con on the so-called “Green New Deal”. I am reserving judgment.

All I can say at this point is that I can support no plan that

1. does not include regular empirical measurement based on outputs rather than inputs of its results and
2. has annual goals based on those measurements and
3. is not self-repealing if the plan fails to meet its goals in any year during which it is effective

I am so lacking in energy this morning I may not have it in me to do a great deal of posting today but I wanted to say this. I am reading a number of observations on socialism and capitalism, some pro some con. In my view like libertarianism socialism is a fine value with which to inform one’s political opinions but it makes for a lousy governmental organizing principle. Anarcho-capitalists cannot bring themselves to admit that their preferred system may produce intolerable social outcomes. Socialists can’t bring themselves to admit that culture and history are important and are not infinitely malleable.

The track record of state socialism is terrible. That cannot be denied. It is possible for small, wealthy, ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries to create expansive welfare systems for themselves only to pull back from them as they become less ethnically and culturally homogeneous and less wealthy. There is no experience to which to turn to consider such systems in large, wealthy, diverse countries. I think the results will more closely resemble the Soviet Union or China than they do Denmark, a tiny country of six million which, when it adopted its system, was 99% ethnically Danish and culturally Lutheran.

Something for those promoting the virtues of capitalism to consider: crony capitalism which is what we have now is not one whit better than soft socialism. If you’re going to defend capitalism, you need to condemn the aspects of our system which have led to it becoming crony capitalism.

What, then, is the solution? I think it lies in patient, constant stewardship. There is no broad, sweeping simple solution to our problems. As H. L. Mencken pointed out a century ago “there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

I have refrained from commenting on the ongoing political disaster proceeding in Virginia and I plan to continue my forebearance. It’s none of my business. I will, however, point out some good observations by David A. Graham at Atlantic:

Virginia has styled itself as a moderate, even at times progressive Upper South state—far away from the social conservatism of the Deep South—in part thanks to the Democratic tilt of Northern Virginia. Democrats have disavowed the white supremacy of Harry Byrd, once the dominant politician in the state. Yet race has been a central issue in Virginia’s recent elections. The white-supremacist march in Charlottesville in August 2017 is an obvious spark point, but the march also showed the strength of racism still within the state, and helped bring out other elements. Corey Stewart, a Republican who espouses a neo-Confederate platform, unsuccessfully ran for the gubernatorial nomination in 2017, losing to Ed Gillespie but driving Gillespie to defend Confederate monuments. Gillespie lost. Stewart won the U.S. Senate nomination in 2018, and was routed by Senator Tim Kaine.

If those elections showed that Virginia still has a very real race problem, the past week has shown that it is not confined to the Republican Party.

Then he goes off the rails. I attribute that to making sweeping generalizations based on limited and inadequate experience.

I will only add this. You cannot determine an individual’s character solely based on the letter that follows his or her name. That the Virginia Democratic Party did not exercise due diligence is incontrovertible. You determine the level of due diligence required in the same way that you decide whether there’s enough light in the reading room. When there’s enough light to read, it’s enough. When easily discovered but disqualifying facts are being discovered, you haven’t done enough.

I recommend looking at the charts that David Leonhardt presents in his latest New York Times column. I found them interesting and revealing. Take this one, for example, which illustrates the changes in the number of people with health care insurance since 2008:

about which he writes:

Since taking office, Trump has tried to undermined the Affordable Care Act, causing a rise in the number of Americans who do not have insurance.

I think he places a lot more stock in intentions than I do. A stronger message might be that quite a few people won’t purchase health care insurance unless compelled to do so. Or that a relentless advertising campaign (one of the things funded by the Affordable Care Act and which ended in June 2015) has an effect.

At any rate read the whole thing. I don’t think the charts are quite as damning of Trump as he seems to and a lot harder on Obama.

My old business partner came up with a number of notable witticisms, one of which I think of as the “reverse Voltaire”: “I may agree with what you say but I deny to the death your right to say it”. That was largely the reaction of the editors of the New York Times to President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union message:

Mr. Trump’s soothing message, in short, was wholly at odds with the acrid reality of how he has governed. In that way, the entire spectacle — reflected in the vibrating hostility between the two sides trapped together in the House chamber — evinced the true state of the union: fractured, fractious, painfully dysfunctional.

The State of the Union address is one of those moments that allows Mr. Trump to play the role of president, with pomp, standing ovations and, sweeter still, a captive audience of his opponents. Even Mr. Trump grasps that, for this one night, he is called upon to rise above partisanship and address the entire nation rather than merely his rump political base.

Beyond the general theme, he nonetheless failed this challenge.

The president, facing several investigations and a Democratic House determined to hold him to account, called for an end to “ridiculous partisan investigations.”

“If there is going to be peace and legislation,” the president said, “there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!”

[…]

If Mr. Trump’s words ring hollow, his actions still matter enormously. Given how bitterly divided the government is, how wounded and uneasy the nation is, it’s impossible not to cling to a hope that he might yet rise to the office and do something for his fellow Americans. But, rather than wait for that to happen, the wisest course for citizens interested in a stronger union is to focus on building it themselves.

Shorter: never Trump.

In his latest New York Times column Tom Friedman lurches uncontrollably into a good observation:

During the late 19th and the 20th centuries the world shifted from being governed by large empires in many regions to being governed by independent nation-states. And the 50 years after World II were a great time to be a weak little nation-state — for several reasons.

First, because there were two superpowers competing for your affection by throwing foreign aid at you, building your army, buying your cheap goods and educating your kids at their universities. Second, climate change was moderate. Third, populations were still under control in the developing world. Fourth, no one had a cellphone to easily organize movements against your government or even see what Paris or Phoenix looked like. Fifth, China was not in the World Trade Organization, so every poor country could be in textiles and other low-wage industries.

All of those advantages disappeared in the early 21st century. Climate-driven extreme weather — floods, droughts, record-setting heat and cold — on top of man-made deforestation began to hammer many countries, especially their small-scale farmers. Developing-world populations exploded thanks to improved health care. Africa went from 140 million people in 1900 to one billion in 2010 to a projected 2.5 billion by 2050. The same surge happened in Central America, in countries like Guatemala.

Meanwhile, the smartphone enabled citizens to easily compare their living standards with Paris or Phoenix — and find a human trafficker app to take them there. Also, China joined the W.T.O., gobbling up low-wage industries, and the end of the Cold War meant no superpower wanted to touch your country, because all it would win was a bill.

The result: It’s much harder to be a weak country today, and the weakest of them are starting to fail or fracture and hemorrhage their people. That’s Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Venezuela in our hemisphere and Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and many countries in sub-Saharan Africa across the Atlantic.

This is creating wide zones of “disorder” — and the biggest geopolitical trend in the world is all the people trying to get out of zones of disorder into the world of order. And that is what’s creating all the populist, nationalist, anti-immigrant backlashes in the world of order — particularly in America and Europe.

That is the real context for this immigration crisis. What’s the answer? Well, if you look at what slowed the flood of single Mexican men illegally and legally coming to America in the last decade, it was the combination of greater economic opportunity in Mexico, thanks in part to Nafta, plus slower population growth in Mexico, plus improved governance in Mexico, plus better border security along the Mexico-U.S. border.

That same formula has to be applied now to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

demonstrating that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There are some critical factors he leaves unmentioned in his analysis. The first is that there are poor people in the United States, too. As many as 20 million Americans live in “extreme poverty”—half of the poverty income. That’s about $6,000 for an individual and $24,000 for a family of four. 20 million is a number equivalent to the entire population of Guatemala, the largest Central American country.

It is not the 19th century or even the early 20th century. Our economy does not create entry level jobs the way it used to. Each person who comes into the United States seeking an entry level job either displaces another entry level employee or reduces the wages of all entry level workers, making things that much worse. I believe that our corporate responsibility to the people who are already here is greater than to the people of Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, or Nicaragua.

The second thing is that of his answer the only thing we can actually control is border security. We can’t negotiate a NAFTA-equivalent with Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. solely on our own. Nor can we slow their population growth nor improve their governance.

That’s one of the ways in which I arrive at my conclusion: we have a moral responsibility to control migration into the United States. That will require a number of measures including physical barriers at the U. S.-Mexican border. As I have said before I would also increase the number of H2-B visas we issue, enforce our employment policies with a greatly enhanced eVerify program, and have an information program targeted at the countries of Central America with the message that they cannot improve their lives by entering the United States illegally.

Somewhat against my better judgment I watched the State of the Union message last night. It was President Trump at his best such as it was—he stayed largely on-script. It was overly long and in my view pointless, emphasizing more than anything else that these exercises should be dispensed with.

For their part I did not think the Democrats’ performance had the effect they were seeking. All of the female Democratic senators and representatives wore white, a poor choice. White shows every crease, fold, and wrinkle. It looks becoming on very few. As some non-Democratic commenters in the peanut gallery pointed out, it was reminiscent of a Klan rally, presumably not the effect they were seeking, especially under the circumstances.

The Democrats remained disciplined, largely following Speaker Pelosi’s lead in their reactions. When she applauded, they applauded. When she stood, they stood. Again, I do not think that evoked the reaction they were seeking. I thought they looked petulant and oppositional. For example they did not applaud when President Trump took note of record low black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment. They rather clearly think they can be strictly oppositional and still take care of the people’s business. I’m not so sure.

I don’t care for the practice opposing party responses to begin with and I thought that Stacey Abrams was an odd choice of someone to deliver it. The unavoidable conclusion was that Democrats are promoting the line that they’ll win elections if Republicans just don’t rig them, darn it.

Bottom line: it was a wasted two hours for me.

I have an amusing story about the banjo I thought I’d share with you. One afternoon about 50 years ago I was in one of the concourses at O’Hare and saw a man and women in their thirties sitting waiting for a plane, completely surrounded by instrument cases. They must have had eight between them.

I walked up to the man and asked “Are you Mike Seeger?” (Mike Seeger was Pete’s younger brother.) He looked at me, startled. “Yes. No one ever recognizes me. How did you?” I responded “I play the banjo”. “That would explain it” he replied.

We had a pleasant, brief conversation about playing the banjo.

At The Nation Aaron Coleman is skeptical that black voters will rally ’round Kamala Harris as they did for Barack Obama:

In spite of his cultural competency, Obama’s tenure oversaw an economic recovery that left many black families behind, and a proliferation of highly visible police brutality. Today, after both a long honeymoon and hangover with a charismatic black candidate, the code-switching playbook may be played out.

When Kamala Harris held her first presidential press conference at the her alma mater, Howard University, she hugged black students sporting black-and-gold Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity jackets and pink-and-green Alpha Kappa Alpha sweatshirts. She posed for pictures with beaming black women in their box braids and Afro-puffs. She shook hands with little curly-haired kids in Bison hoodies. Standing behind a placard modeled after Shirley Chisholm’s presidential design and in front of a plaque bearing Howard’s logo, Kamala conjured the imagery and legacy of the historically black University—a lineage that includes Toni Morrison, Thurgood Marshall, Zora Neale Hurston, Donny Hathaway, and more.

Yet all the pageantry doesn’t seem to be enough to distract from her policy record.

I think that black voters expected President Obama to “bring home the bacon” and when he did not do that they were disappointed. I suspect they will not be as easily misled by another black presidential candidate.

I have a larger question. Which are the most atypical states in the Union? As should surprise no one, Hawaii is the least typical, followed by Alaska. California is the third least typical state.

Within California Northern California is very different from Southern or Central California and within the San Francisco area Oakland is extremely atypical—demographically it’s a lot like Chicago.

About 30% of present day Americans are either immigrants or their children. In other words that’s atypical, too.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a background or experience different from those of most Americans. Indeed, I like it. But I do think that it affects your understanding of Americans. Your instincts are understandably skewed.

I think it’s about time that we had a president whose life experience was more like that of most Americans than our last several and by that I don’t mean white. I mean not plutocrats, not aristocrats, and with more typical life experiences. I would vote for Cory Booker before I’d vote for Kamala Harris. IMO he’s more likely to understand typical Americans than Kamala Harris is.