Skip to main content

The Coming Trump Trainwreck

Image for the news result

Let's make the following assumption: Hillary Clinton is about to win the Presidency, and the Democratic Party is about to regain control of the U.S. Senate. Control of the House may remain in Republican hands.

Further, let's assume that Trump responds to the loss with his usual grace. He announces that (a) the election was rigged, (b) all major media, including Fox News, were part of the rigging, and (c) he'll keep the revolution going, he's going to create the Trump News Network, offering Movement News (after a lot of gastroenterology jokes, that phrase will be abandoned).

Assume all that, with some slight variations at your discretion. What does this mean? What will our politics look like during the first four years of the HRC administration?

I suspect that the Grand Old Party is headed for its final crack-up. The Reagan coalition has consisted, roughly speaking, of three parts: white nationalists (more or less openly avowed, or hotly denied, to be such); small government conservatives (like Ron and then Rand Paul, and at least arguably Ted Cruz), and big government conservatives (think of the Bush family, or Irving and Bill Kristol, or the fellow pictured above, Evan McMullin). It is reasonable to suppose, given the above assumptions, that those three parts will come unglued, and there will be three parties where there now are one.

The three opposition parties will give HRC little trouble. This scenario has her party winning control of the House in 2018, and essentially redefining the Supreme Court over the course of her first term. Voila! the U.S. has its "fourth republic," something far more along European social democratic lines than anything anyone expected before Trump came down that escalator.

For those who came in late, I think of the first Republic as the period beginning with the ratification of the US constitution and continuing until sectional rivalry really got out of hand and a civil war became necessary. The second Republic began when the victors in that war created three sweeping new constitutional amendments and continued until the stock market crash of 1929 and its aftermath. The third republic was in place by the time the Supreme Court caved to Roosevelt's demands in 1937, and continued until ... well, let's say the global financial crisis of 2007-08. Now the fallout from that third disaster has finally settled and -- again given the above assumptions, the fourth republic is at hands, its outlines are predictable.

I'm not cheer leading for it, just describing events as I see them. Feel free to comment but please don't shoot the piano player.

For me, the intriguing question is what happens THEN? Over time, I'm sure (and not too much of it) something will emerge as the ONE key opposition party to the HRC Dems. Perhaps the core of the new opposition will incorporate one or more of the three parts of the old Republican Party, and will combine it with disaffected Dems after some crisis within their ranks. What its broad features will be, I don't pretend to know.  I've been as speculative already as I dare.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …