I’ve been thinking what the coming elections will bring. And I’m going to present them now, although obviously they are highly uncertain. In 2014, I expect the Republicans to make small gains in both the House and Senate. I figure they have about 50% chance of retaking the Senate. (On the other hand, if the Republicans manage to force the federal government into a default over the Debt Ceiling, it will decimate the party and the Democrats will control both houses at the beginning of 2015.) After this reasonable showing, Republican conventional wisdom will be that they won’t have to do anything to reform. Karl Rove will increase his daily dose of Prilosec.

In 2016, the Democrats will have a huge year. They will retain the White House and get or retain control of Congress. At this point, all of the pundits will say that surely now the Republican Party will reform itself. But the party will not make any changes for the same reason they aren’t now: they don’t want to offend the base of support (which will still be substantial) that they already have. This is when the chance of a Karl Rove heart attack really increases.

In 2018, the Democrats will make small gains. Given that it is an off year elections, the Republican Party will be forced to reconsider. They will note that their gerrymandering is no longer helping. What’s more, if they don’t do anything, the Democrats will be able to gerrymander them out of existence in 2020. They will note that their efforts at voter suppression have failed. They will see their base dying off and their policies seen as medieval. And they will, at long last, rebuild the tattered remains of a once great American political party. If Karl Rove is still alive, he won’t be of much help. Just the same, lots of Republicans will tell him, “We should have listened to you!”

Is this happy horseshit? I don’t think so. But it does reflect what I think it will take for the Republican Party to accept the hit from its base: three election cycles. There are lots of other things they could do, but for a party that has been so good at using fear and resentment to political advantage, they’ve been strangely clueless about everything else. Think of the Democratic Party coming into the the 1960s. It was a racist party! But it saw an opportunity to grab the civil rights mantel.

Republicans could have grabbed the marriage equality mantel. God knows the Democrats were reluctant to do it. And it would have cost them so little. In my experience, the Christian community is far more obsessed with abortion and birth control than they are gay rights. But the Republican Party let it pass. And I suspect that the Republicans will do the same thing with the libertarian anti-war or anti-bank possibilities. The reason is that to its very core, the conservative movement in this country thinks its purpose is to hold the line against modernity. And that just isn’t going to work. One day, being against same sex marriage will seem as bigoted as miscegenation laws do today.

It will take three election cycles for Republicans to find their way forward. I just hope that the Democrats don’t use this opportunity to become even more the party of big business.

“It’s almost as if spoiled children seized control of part of the federal government and don’t appreciate just how much damage their recklessness can do.” That was written this morning by Steven Benen. He is one of the prominent members of the Happy Horseshit Caucus (HHC), a group of liberal pundits who are far better than I at ignoring all the evidence and assuming the best about the Republicans.

I first came up with the name when writing about Greg Sargent’s repeated claims that we didn’t have to worry about the Republicans destroying the world with the Debt Limit. He would always say something like, “Boehner has already admitted Republicans won’t allow default.” As I said back in May:

Well, all that has changed! Today Boehner said, “We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending. It’s as simple as that.” Quelle surprise!

Now, it seems that the HHC is having trouble maintaining its optimism. Greg Sargent is at least wavering. This afternoon he wrote lots of column inches about the Obama administration’s strong commitment to not negotiating. And he seems to be holding out some home that John McCain will save the day. Steven Benen seems to have completely collapsed. But even he ends his article on a positive note, “The last time the White House stuck to its guns, the GOP backed down. Stay tuned.”

The problem as I see it is that the Republicans will do damage regardless. Obama may say that he won’t negotiate over the Debt Ceiling, but he will still negotiate about the budget and that is never a good thing. In the end, I expect that we will see the Debt Ceiling raised and the Republicans will get something for doing it. Obama has shown himself to be too twitchy a negotiator and the Republicans have shown themselves to be every bit as crazy as their reputation would indicate. Where this all ends is anyone’s guess. And that’s what’s so terrifying about this situation. I don’t think that Boehner has any idea how this all going to end. He’s like a bad chess player who starts a major attack without any notion of where it leads: he will ultimately lose, but there will be huge loses on both sides.

Sheva Diagne at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) wrote a really interesting article on social scientist Tali Kristal’s recent paper, The Capitalist Machine: Computerization, Workers’ Power, and the Decline in Labor’s Share within U.S. Industries (pdf). There are many aspects to explain how automation decreases the income share of workers relative to business owners. But the main way, according to Kristal, is that it leads to lower unionization rates.

The finding isn’t exactly surprising, but the mechanism is. Those industries that were highly unionized are the ones that have been hit hardest by automation. So as automation came into manufacturing, unionized auto plant workers (for example) became non-unionized fry cooks. This hammers home just how important unions were to the shared gains in productivity from the 40s through the 60s. No one can really question this fact. Traditionally, conservatives argued that it was all right because a rising tide lifted all boats. But that just isn’t the case anymore. According to John Schmitt (also at CEPR), from 1979 and 2012, average American worker productivity rose by 85%. But average worker pay rose by only 6%. What’s more, the minimum wage fell by 21%.

There is an obvious question. Why does Canada still have roughly the same unionization level that it had in 1960? After all, America isn’t alone in automation. I think there are two reasons for this: the Taft–Hartley Act and Ronald Reagan. The Taft–Hartley Act made unions far less powerful than they were. And interestingly, it did it in ways that would be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court were at all consistent. Remember, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court found that it would infringe on the constitutional free speech rights of businesses. Well, much of what Taft-Hartley did is stop unions from the right of free association. But I don’t see the Supreme Court ever considering this logic.

As for Reagan, what little power the unions had when he came into power was destroyed by him. It isn’t that he changed the laws. He just stopped enforcing them. And no one (Including our great Democratic presidents) has since changed that. To some extent, the labor movement got what it deserved with Reagan. Carter only barely won the labor vote. And I know, Reagan had some nice things to say about labor while he was campaigning. But it really wasn’t mysterious where he really stood. And just like my brother-in-law, many union members were more interested in going after that mythical welfare queen than in protecting their very real interests. But I still feel sorry for all of them—all of us.

So the big problem is not that union jobs are being lost due to automation. The problem is that the new jobs created are not unionized. For example, there is no reason why Walmart workers shouldn’t be unionized. In fact, in other countries they are. But they aren’t here because the government allows and even encourages it. Somehow, Walmart can make money with unions in Brazil, but would go bankrupt if it had to allow unions here.

There are a lot of things that the federal government could do to decrease inequality in his country. It could, for example, make income taxes more progressive. It could make the payroll tax less regressive. It could use the extra revenue to help the poorer classes. And all of that would do a great deal. But by far the biggest thing that the government could do is to allow workers the right to unionize. Because effectively, that right is dead.

Boys will be boys. I really believe that. People should be allowed to be themselves as long as no one is directly harmed. What that means to me in practice is that people should be allowed to take what drugs they like, fuck what people are willing, and say just about anything that comes into their little brains. Sadly, more and more those in power do not believe this. They think that everyone should be on their best behavior all the time. Or at least the poor and weak should. Or at least black people.

The Young Turks segment embedded below tells two stories that took place at a Wichita mall after the Zimmerman verdict. The first is of A. J. Bohannon, a young black man who got arrested for wearing a sign that read, “If I don’t stand for something then I will fall for anything #RIPTrayvonMartin.” Then shortly after that, a small group of people protested his arrest at the mall. Two white guys—one wearing a black shirt that read, “This shirt can say NIGGER because it is black”—tried to incite the protesters. They didn’t succeed, but they also weren’t arrested:

So what is the lesson here? Apparently, it is that if you are black with a real political statement, it is unacceptable. But if you are white with no other purpose but to just be an asshole, that’s just fine. This story upsets me greatly because it shows how racism actually works in the United States. It isn’t usually about people getting killed. Normally, it is just about beating down minority groups and keeping them in their “place.”

The key to these cases is exactly the opposite of the way that it should be. We have free speech rights especially for political statements. But when Bohannon tried to make a political statement, the mall authorities claimed that it wasn’t acceptable precisely because it was political. The white assholes could go anywhere in the mall. The authorities wouldn’t care because it wasn’t political. It was just boys being boys. And that is a huge problem. It also gets to an issue I have with libertarian thought where any kind of oppression is okay as long as it isn’t the government. Well, for we who are not loons, it is not okay.

Afterword

It won’t surprise me at all to hear that the mall has issued a statement that explicitly racist t-shirts will not be allowed. But that will only be because of the recent politicization. The fact remains that the white guys walking through the mall with their t-shirts wouldn’t have even been noticed before. But a black kid? He sticks out. And you know what the Chinese say, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered.” In our country, the nail that sticks out is the person who isn’t white.

On this day in 1651, the Austrian composer Ferdinand Tobias Richter was born. I’m not that fond of him. But 51 years later Alessandro Besozzi was born in 1702. He was one of the great oboists of his time. In addition, he was a fine composer of Classical period music. Here is his Sonata Number 4 for 2 Oboes and Continuo in A Minor:

Designer of the Pantheon, Jacques-Germain Soufflot was born in 1713. The great mathematician Friedrich Bessel was born in 1784.

The great painter Edward Hopper was born in 1882. It is extremely sad that I cannot give the day to him. I love his work. Especially when he includes people, his stuff seems heartbreakingly lonely. My favorite has long been Automat, which I originally saw at the Reprint Mint in Berkeley and bought for a girl friend:

And Kennedy matriarch Rose Kennedy was born in 1890—and lived to 104!

The great soprano Licia Albanese is 100 today. Novelist Tom Robbins is 77. Badass who looks great in a dress, Terence Stamp is 74. “Tell him I’m fucking coming!”

Alex Trebek is 73. It’s amazing what make-up and cue cards can do. The great George Clinton is 72. Actor Danny Glover and wacko director Paul Schrader are both 67. Comedian Albert Brooks is 66. I can’t mention him without showing this which is one of the funniest things ever:

Don Henley is also 66. I don’t much like him, that’s why I love Mojo Nixon’s classic, “Don Henley Must Die”:

The great guitarist Al Di Meola is 59. Actor Willem Dafoe is 58. And Rufus Wainwright is 40. Here he is doing his excellent version of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”:

But while this day could have gone to any number of people, it goes to the great director James Whale who was born on this day in 1889. He directed a lot of films I really love like Claude Rains as The Invisible Man and the great The Old Dark House. But he will live forever in paradise at the right hand of the father because of Bride of Frankenstein. Look, Frankenstein was a great picture too. But Bride is something more—especially since it gives Karloff so much more to do. Also: I totally have a crush on Elsa Lanchester. And, of course, the film has so many classic scenes. This is campy but deeply affecting film making. “She hate me. Like others”:

Happy birthday James Whale!

Update (22 July 2012 9:28 pm)

I can’t believe I forgot Bob Dole! I even put it on my calender. He’s 90 today and just like Bush the Elder, I don’t figure he’s going to make it to 91. I hope he does. He seems like a nice enough guy. But he doesn’t seem to be doing well and modern medicine can only take you so far. People have a far higher death rate after major life events. That’s why I’m predicting a death. But I’m pleased to see him make it this far.

Justice Antonin Scalia was in Colorado over the weekend, doing his thang. He gave a talk titled, “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters.” What strikes me about this is how clueless Scalia is about what he (or any other judge) does. According to the Aspen Times, he said that what led to the Nazis was that in the 1930s, judges interpreted the laws in ways that reflected “the spirit of the age.” Basically, he’s saying that relativism is what caused Nazism.

This is not a new idea. In fact, this is exactly are argument of The Ominous Parallels. In that book, Leonard Peikoff claims that because of the relativism of Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, Germany was primed to accept any old ideology. Peikoff is a smart guy, but by that time he was living fully under the intellectual shadow of Ayn Rand. His understanding of those three great philosophers bears no resemblance to what I’ve read; they weren’t relativists. And why it took over a hundred years for all this supposed relativism to sink into the German psyche is never explained. Regardless, Peikoff’s book is polemics, not history or philosophy. And the same is true of Scalia.

My big problem with Scalia’s observation is not that it is wrong. The problem is that his argument has nothing to do with finding the truth. What he means but will not come right out and say is that we should not interpret laws in ways that reflect the spirit of this age; we should interpret them in ways that reflect the spirit of some other age. And that age is whenever it appealed to Scalia’s prejudices.

Note that at least the spirit of this age is a single time. Scalia has no problem reflecting the 18th century sometimes or the civil war or the roaring 20s. It really doesn’t matter. The truth is whatever he thinks. Because he is smart, he can easily see the intellectual gymnastics that others perform to justify their own beliefs. But he is utterly clueless about his own gymnastics. Either that, or he is just another “might makes right” conservative who has no problem lying if it will help his cause.

As I’ve noted in the past, Scalia isn’t always wrong. Recently, in Maryland v. King, he argued against the majority that claimed it was fine for the police to do unwarranted DNA testing. Of course, when it came to unwarranted DUI checkpoints in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, Scalia was fine with them. The point is not that Scalia is right or wrong about any given issue; it is that Scalia is ruled more powerfully by his prejudices than most other jurists. So it is ironic that he would publicly complain about others for something that he does in a far more pernicious way.

H/T: Steve Benen