War with Iran? You fly over, drop a few hundred bombs, problem solved. Am I right?! That’s worked out so well for us in the past, why wouldn’t it work well now? Lots of reasons, actually — as I will get to in a moment. But Tom Cotton thinks that a bombing campaign against Iran would take only “several days.” Ted Cruz begs to differ. According to him, it might take a whole week. But John Bolton is on board. He says that Cotton is “exactly right.” You see, as military historian and geopolitical expert Mike Huckabee said, this nuclear deal with Iran would “put the whole world in a very, very dangerous place.” Yes, negotiated deals make the world dangerous. Starting World War III just makes us safe.

Wait a minute! Who said anything about World War III? These guys just told us that it would be nothing but sending in aircraft to drop some bombs. Clean and simple. Over and out. And we know from experience that such rosy predictions always turn out great. Remember all the rose petals that our troops were greeted with? Remember how right Dick Cheney was when he said, “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators”? Remember when he said the same thing that Tom Cotton and company are saying now, “I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months”? How could anything go wrong this time?

We all know about white privilege. What we have here is America privilege. It is the delusion that America can do whatever it wants and no one will do anything about it. The idea that Iran would counter-attack just doesn’t occur to them. They don’t imagine that both Russia and China might be drawn in to defend Iran. Think that’s reaching? Consider this: Iran has already agreed on a negotiation framework that all the world is thrilled with except the American and Israeli right. So an attack on Iran would not be seen as an act of protection. It would be seen as what it would be: an act of aggression — and a worse one than the invasion of Iraq.

The National Interest has been writing a lot of good stuff about a potential attack on Iran. This is not some liberal rag. It focuses on realism — think Machiavelli — in international relations. It was founded by neoconservative Irving Kristol. The main thing is that it is not naive and it is not stupid. Last month, I discussed an article by Robert Farley, We Need to Think Before Bombing Iran. His major point was that we simply aren’t going to be able to bomb away Iran’s nuclear program. My point was that the unintended consequences were great.

Back in 2013 (and republished late last year, for obvious reasons), Geoffrey Kemp and John Allen Gay wrote, The High Cost of War With Iran. They brought up one point that has an interesting irony. One of the big claims about Iran is that it is the “biggest supporter of terrorism in the world.” Well, in the event of an American attack, Iran could step that up. As they noted, “[T]his will create uncertainty for any attacker—too violent to be peace, but not fully war. This state of affairs will put Iran on a more level footing with the United States…” Oh, and the massive America air campaign would only knock out the big parts of the nuclear program that we know about. And this would — Quelle surprise! — require further bombing campaigns in the future. Eventually, there would have to be a diplomatic solution — the kind of thing we are on the verge of now and that the hardliners in the US and Israel will never accept.

The authors also talk about how there is no actual evidence that Iran has a weapons program and getting a weapon wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. They would use it the way all other countries do: as a deterrent; they wouldn’t give it to terrorists (the idea that they would has always been ridiculous). But the meat of the article is how even a minor and short war with Iran would have enormous economic costs, “A $10 increase in the price per barrel of oil would take a billion dollars from American consumers in about five days.” For a Republican Party determined to cut food stamps, you would think they would care about such a major threat to the economy. What’s more, the hit to the Middle East oil supply would help out two other hated regimes of the conservatives: Russia and Venezuela. No mention is made of this, but that would provide Russia with all the more incentive to help out Iran in a war with the United States.

But these are just what military experts — backed up by actual military leaders — think. Despite what they say, people like Cotton and Cruz and Bolton and Huckabee don’t care about what the actual military says — unless it agrees with what they already want to do. But there are some conservatives who are being more reasonable. Shockingly, Bobby Jindal was more reasonable — claiming that he would want to hear from the military as to just how fast we could take down Iran. I don’t give him too much credit, because (1) he should already know; and (2) I’m sure he will change his position once he hears that the military isn’t keen on the strategy.

Carly Fiorina and John Kasich were both pretty gloomy on the prospect — more proof that they will never get the Republican nomination for president. The most sensible thing was said by Lindsey Graham, “I think a military attack on Iran opens up pandora’s box. You’ve got to assume the worst, not the best.” Is it possible?! Can a Republican actually learn? Well add Graham’s name to the list of Republican presidential nominees who are not serious. Of course, even the best of the Republicans just want to do nothing: no negotiations but no bombing. That’s a very bad solution. It only looks good compared to what most Republicans want.

Paul Krugman wrote about some research by the IMF that he finds very exciting, Crowding In and the Paradox of Thrift. What the research shows is that since the bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis, government borrowing has not “crowed out” private sector investment. In fact, it is just the opposite. When governments cut their spending, so did businesses. This does not come as a surprise to me, and despite Krugman’s excitement, it certainly doesn’t come as a surprise to him. This is, after all, exactly what Keynes showed was happening in the economy eighty years ago.

This is why economics isn’t a science — or at least a very good science. There is a major part of the field that seems to think that Keynes was proven wrong by Friedman and Lucas and all the rest. Apparently, that’s how they think science works. Someone has a theory that seems to work and then something goes wrong and shows the theory doesn’t work. So a whole new theory is developed and the old one is just discarded. This is not, not, not how science works. Let me try to explain with the help of the ideal gas law.

If you’ve ever taken a chemistry course, you’ve been introduced to the ideal gas law: PV = nRT. Put in more or less English: the pressure times the volume of a gas is equal to the total number of atoms times a constant times the temperature. This is only a theoretical law that applies to a perfect gas that doesn’t exist in the real world. But it still works remarkably well for real gases as long as the system isn’t changed too quickly. Regardless, if you’ve learned about the ideal gas law, you were doubtless first taught about Boyle’s law, which says that pressure times volume is a constant — that as volume increases, pressure decreases. And you were also taught about Charles’ law, which says that volume divided by temperature is a constant — that as temperature increases, so does volume.

When I was learning this stuff, I thought Boyle’s law and Charles’ law were stupid. They we built into the ideal gas law. Who needed them? Well, we need them because we need to understand how science works. Boyle’s law was discovered by Richard Towneley and Henry Power in 1661. Charles’ law was discovered in 1802 by Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac. The ideal gas law was first formalized in 1834 by Émile Clapeyron. The ideal gas law incorporates the two earlier laws. If you use the ideal gas law and hold temperature constant, you get Boyle’s law. If you use the ideal gas law and hold the volume constant, you get Charles’ law. If you did not, then the ideal gas law would be wrong.

Similarly, quantum mechanics and relativity reduce to classical mechanics under normal conditions. Statistical mechanics reduces to thermodynamics on the macro scale. This second example is particularly relevant to economics because the idea of microfoundations is so important to the field. But did the models with their microfoundations reduce to a regular old Keynesian model when a clear demand shock hit the economy? Well, some did. But if the field as a whole isn’t able to dismiss theories that don’t duplicate previous — correct but incomplete — models, what is the field doing? The real business cycle models seem to have been designed to explain the oil shocks of the 1970s. Good for them! But if a field comes up with a radical new theory for every new bit of data, it isn’t doing science.

So we find ourselves in an economic situation that Keynes would have found very familiar. Yet even a true Keynesian like Paul Krugman has to continue to go around and push research that shows what all the economic models should show. The economy is not performing up to its potential. There is already too much savings for the amount of investment that people want to do. If the government cuts spending, all it will do is reduce demand in the economy. This isn’t hard — I know because even I understand it. But a good part of the economics profession wants to discount this for ideological reasons. This isn’t science. I would call it theology, but that would be an insult to theologians who mostly do a better job than economists.

Martin “Felonious Frog” Longman wrote a bit of a scattered but very insightful article yesterday, Republicans and Reality. He started by quoting a bit of troubling polling data for the Republicans. According to Republican pollster Whit Ayres, only 18% of Americans want to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the great Republican alternative: nothing. Similarly, 60% of Republicans under the age of 30 are in favor of same sex marriage. (Don’t applaud too much; the number is roughly 90% young Democrats.) The problem is that the early primaries don’t exactly provide a lot of room for the Republican candidates to be moderate.

The first race in the 2016 primary will be in the reasonable state of Iowa (28 delegates). But that’s just an average. It is reasonable overall, but the Republicans there are crazy. Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum won the state in 2012. New Hampshire (12 delegates) provides a reasonable opportunity for moderation, and Mitt “Self Deportation” Romney did win there. But then comes Colorado (36 delegates) and Minnesota (40 delegates) — both won by Santorum. That same day will be the primary in New York (95 delegates) — doubtless an effort on the part of Republicans to inject some sanity in the primary. That primary was at the very end of the race and Romney won big because he was the only one still running. Just the same, he would have won regardless. And finally, there’s Utah (40) — which Romney won but I don’t think that means anything for obvious reasons.

For those not keeping count, that’s 107 “moderate” delegates and 144 crazy conservative delegates during the first three days of voting. A week and a half later, South Carolina gets to vote. And who did they vote for last time? Newt “Yay, child labor!” Gingrich! It does create a bit of a problem for the Republican Party. It isn’t that the candidates hold truly vile opinions — which they all do. It is that as long as they don’t make a big deal out of those vile opinions, the mainstream media will give them a pass. But people like Steve King in Iowa is not going to want to let them get away with that.

I’m still of the opinion that the economy trumps all else. But that doesn’t mean that candidates don’t matter at all. Even during a total economic meltdown in 2008, John McCain still managed to get 173 electoral votes. And I’m fairly convinced about what Jonathan Chait wrote last week, How “Negative Partisanship” Has Transformed American Politics. More and more, people decide which party they will not vote for. And in the south, we’ve seen this for a while — because of bigotry. But now this same thing is affecting other states — now to the advantage of the Democrats — because of the bigotry of the Republican Party.

As I noted regarding the move of the New York primary, the Republicans (and the Democrats) are trying to front load the election to get the most “electable” candidates for the general election. But the schedule doesn’t create any problems for the Democrats. The Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Utah are not going to push the candidates heavily to the left. I wish they would. But the Republicans are going to have to pander in a big way — even with New York’s 95 delegates. And even there, I suspect they will appeal to the electorate there primarily by talking about how we really need to start bombing Iran.

On Friday, Ezra Klein reminded us, The Anti-Obamacare Movement Is Making Red States Sicker and Poorer. I understand what the Republican elites tell themselves. By doing the maximum amount of damage to the law, it will become untenable. People will not sit by and watch the health insurance industry in Arizona be destroyed. They will demand action. But given that over half of the people in the United States will be doing just fine, I don’t see people rising up and saying, “Let’s get rid of Obamacare!” I see them saying, “Let’s get rid of these jerks running the red states who don’t care at all about their people!”

Of course, this is in reference specifically to King v Burwell. But the truth of the matter is that it applies to everything. The refusal to accept the Medicaid expansion in 22 states only hurts those states. It not only deprives many of their working poor of health insurance, it deprives the states themselves of billions of dollars in economic stimulus. This is all, once again, in the name of symbolism: they won’t accept any help from that communist in the White House. But it does those states no good. All that such symbolic measures do is allow the politicians to fight with each other for the mantle of Most Conservative. And when they all qualify for the award, none of them get any benefit from it.

The other side of this is that these red states are still bound by the healthcare law. They still pay taxes for it. They just aren’t getting all of the benefits — and if King v Burwell is upheld, they won’t be getting any benefits. Ezra Klein is exactly right when he summarized the situation, “In effect, the Republican plan to destroy Obamacare has become a plan in which red states subsidize Obamacare in blue states.” Very effective, guys!

According to estimates of the Kaiser Family Foundation that were quoted by Klein, the Republican petulance regarding Obamacare has resulted in five million extra people going without health insurance and foregoing a staggering $37 billion every year. That’s roughly the total GDP of Wyoming. So Republicans are causing enormous amounts of pain to themselves for a very low probability of getting rid of the hated healthcare law.

And let’s remember, Obamacare is about as conservative an approach as there is to healthcare reform. The one part of it that Republicans most complain about — the individual mandate — was the basis of the very conservative Heritage Foundation plan. Now it is true that the Democrats added — Oh, the horror! — subsidies to help middle and lower class workers. But the truth is that the plan never would have worked without these subsidies. This, above all, is why the Republicans have been unable to come up with something to replace the law with: Obamacare is the conservative replacement. This has gone along with conservative healthcare “wonks” looking all over the world to find a conservative plan that works. And they always end up embarrassing themselves, because the other plans always turn out to be more liberal than Obamacare.

It’s all just a mess. And I am absolutely certain that in ten years, all the states will have fully embraced Obamacare. Republicans will even run against Democrats claiming that they want to make workers pay more for healthcare. But in the meantime, huge amounts of suffering will have gone on — both directly in terms of fewer people being covered and indirectly by harming the economy. But by then, it will all be forgotten. American politics really isn’t ideological anymore. The question that workers have to answer is simply, “Which party will govern with even the most basic competence?” And the answer is the Democrats. The Republicans don’t even try.

Here in my hometown of Santa Rosa, we have a case of a police officer brutalizing a suspect and then lying on the witness stand in a very important case: jaywalking. Celeste Moon is a 51 year old single mother and culinary student at Santa Rosa Junior College. She was walking home one afternoon when she heard someone shout at her about waiting for the light. When she heard a car door slam and someone coming toward her, she ran. She was afraid it was one of our many local thugs. It turned out to be Sheriff’s Deputy Charles Blount. But what happened next makes one wonder if there is much difference between our local thugs and our sheriff’s deputies.

When Blount caught up to her, he arrested her and hurt her while trying to put handcuffs on her. That’s pretty standard. The police are not known for being very gentle or, frankly, caring in the least about it. As you can see in the video below, Blount puts Moon in a headlock and slams he to the ground where she begins screaming. Five police vehicles were then called in for “back up” because of this dangerous 51 year old single mother. Even though you can only see the two from about shoulder height, the video is quite upsetting.

This seems a pretty typical case. Law enforcement officers have a perpetual chip on their shoulders. The worst thing you can do to one is not treat them with all the respect that they think they deserve — and never think they have to earn. So this whole case has nothing to do with jaywalking and everything to do with the bruised ego of Deputy Blount. But the story here is not about what seems obviously excessive force. There apparently is no such thing in modern America. Moon ought to be thankful that Blount didn’t just shoot her in the back and then drop a taser at her feet.

The story here is that the video surfaced after Blount did what law enforcement officers do every day when they go to court: lie. According to The Press Democrat, “The video, taken by a neighbor, contradicts Blount’s court testimony earlier this week that he placed both of his hands on Moon’s shoulders and pushed her down, said Moon’s lawyer, Izaak Schwaiger.” Well of course it did. If sheriff’s deputies like Blount said what they really did on a daily basis, the world would be a much different — and more just — place.

But the truth is that as a society, we don’t want to know. Most people will never find themselves in Moon’s situation. So they figure that all the police brutality and lying is just fine. It is all in the service of keeping us all safe. But of course, it isn’t. The fact that Blount felt the need to treat this middle aged woman this way is a good indication that he’s not in the habit of having to deal with truly dangerous situations. In his mind, “keeping order” has probably fully merged with “people respecting me.”

Blount is a “17-year law enforcement veteran.” According to a spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Department, Blont was was probably just testifying to the best of his memory. I kind of doubt that. The description — placed both hands on Moon’s shoulders and pushed her down — sounds too “edited for sensitive viewers.” But there is little doubt that the deputy didn’t think much of it at the time.

The real problem is not Blount, of course. What really amazes me is that given this clear evidence that Blount either knowingly lied on the stand or doesn’t remember the case clearly enough to testify, Judge Jamie Thistlethwaite didn’t throw out the case. Now I don’t know, but I assume that the only evidence against Moon is Blount’s testimony. Instead of throwing it out, the judge “directed prosecutors to consider whether the gap between his testimony and the video affects the deputy’s credibility.” So justice is left up to the DA — as usual. And no groups are closer than the DA and police. I would assume that the DA will try to strike some deal where they drop charges in exchange for Moon not suing the county.

The injustices in this country are so many. This isn’t a case of law enforcement murder. But it is part of the same system and the same problem. And all of us are culpable for allow it to continue on.

Matt Taibbi wrote a very good rant on Thursday, Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton’s Fake Populism Is a Hit. But I’m not sure he’s quite right to write off Clinton as a fake populist. I think the arguments against her could have been levied against FDR. Now I’m not saying that Clinton will actually turn against her class once she is president. In fact, I don’t think she will. She seems to be a total neoliberal, and if she wins the presidency, she will be the third New Democratic president we’ve had in a row. And sadly, in as much as the American voter notices, it doesn’t seem to care.

The real problem is buried in one thing that Taibbi focused on: the carried interest loophole — that bit of the tax code that allows people literally making billions of dollars to pay only a 15% tax rate. He commented facetiously, “Raise your hand if you really think that Hillary Clinton is going to repeal the carried interest tax break.” Anyone raising their hand it a complete idiot. As he noted, Obama promised to get rid of this loophole in 2008. And 2012. Yet the loophole has been around for thirty years. It ain’t going nowhere.

And the reason is clear as day. There are rich people who benefit greatly from this loophole. Some of them give massive amounts of money to the Republicans and some give massive amounts of money to the Democrats. And no national politician is going to forego that money that benefits them directly to do something that would be good and fair for the country as a whole. Now if the electorate stands up and demands something be done, it will be. Or if the electorate stands up and demands that we get money out of politics, it will be done. But otherwise: forget about it.

I’m tired of hearing about the “invisible primary.” Why don’t we just call it what it is: the money primary. The mainstream media is so corrupt that they define a “viable” candidate to be one that is able to raise a lot of money. But here is something that is almost never mention: money doesn’t matter that much in the general election. Jonathan Bernstein recently wrote, “Believe it or not, general-election presidential campaigns are where political spending matters the least.” So we’ve been sold this bill of goods about the importance of money. But all that does is give people with a lot of money that much more influence over our politics. Thank you, neutral press corps!

Just the same, I don’t agree with Taibbi’s larger point. I don’t mind Clinton’s pandering. The fact that she is reciting a “medley of Elizabeth Warren’s greatest stump hits” is a good thing. As Ezra Klein has written a lot about in the past, what politicians say really does matter. The fact that she is talking in a more populist way doesn’t mean she will get rid of carried interest loophole. (And even if she wanted to, I’m not sure Congress would go along.) But it does mean she is more likely to be somewhat more populist and somewhat less neoliberal than she would have been had she won in 2008. The problem is the system, not Hillary Clinton.