Blackcap Blog

Published at 07:35 on 1 March 2019

Relations have never been good between the two, but they’ve recently degraded significantly. It started when India bombed Pakistan in retaliation for a terrorist attack that India claimed Pakistan was involved in.

At that point, any sane US administration would have scolded India in a way that made the Indian government worry about the future of its trade and other relations with the USA if they didn’t cool it. But of course, we don’t have a sane chief executive, we have an incompetent fascist who sees right-wing nationalists like India’s ruling BJP to be natural allies. So of course the fascist idiots came down squarely on India’s side.

Given how both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and given how this is the most serious conflict between the two since they nuclearized, this is positively frightening. Thankfully, Pakistan seems to be acting conciliatory in recent hours (they’ve unilaterally announced they will release the pilot of an Indian military plane they shot down), but this whole thing could still easily escalate out of control and precipitate a most horrifying outcome.

Published at 11:09 on 28 February 2019

Disclaimer: Nothing in the following entry should be construed as claiming the Democrats are equally as evil as the Republicans, and that therefore it does not matter who wins the 2020 election. Clearly, both stances are false. In the short term, there is significant value in unseating the Republicans from power as much as possible. However, it is also simultaneously true that the two sides have much in common, and this in and of itself both poses a threat and severely limits the ability of the system to self-correct using its own institutions (e.g. electoral politics).

One side wants to increase state power so they can use force to maintain the traditional white, male, capitalist hierarchy. The other side wants to increase state power so they can use government action to limit the worst abuses of capitalism, and in general to pursue a fool’s paradise of utopia via the crafting of the perfect set of regulations with which to (micro)manage everyone’s lives. The scenario recently posted here of a Democratic president using emergency powers to get what he or she wants (and the resultant precedent this would establish) is all-too-possible.

The two sides disagree strongly on how state power should be used, but they both agree that it should be not only used, but increased significantly. Any support for the Democrats must be given with eyes wide open and in full knowledge of this inconvenient fact. Both parties are enemies of liberty, and both should be seen as such.

Published at 17:45 on 27 February 2019

In an article penned on the eve of Trump’s emergency declaration, conservative Trump critic Rick Wilson writes:

He’s also opening a door that Republicans will regret walking through if and when executive power changes hands: When future President Biden, President Castro, President Harris or President Warren can’t get push their agenda through Congress, they’ll be able to do an end-run on the Constitution, claim emergency powers and cite Trump’s precedent to justify it.

The rub is, it goes far beyond just Republicans living to regret this ugly thing, should it survive court challenges. Suppose the next Democrat acts precisely as Wilson fears. Then what? It won’t end there; far from it! The only constant in politics is change. A right-winger will get into the White House soon enough, and with this whole “the president can rule by decree via emergency powers” business by then established even more firmly by precedent.

What happens then? Most likely, something that makes Trump look like a harmless little fuzzball in comparison. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Both that, and the earlier issue with a Democrat running rampant with unrestrained executive power, make me somewhat hopeful that the Supremes will slap this thing down. The Court does have a conservative majority, but it is mostly conservatives that predate Trump (and Gorsuch has already shown himself willing to rule against the president that appointed him).

Published at 08:15 on 15 February 2019

My prediction is that it’s not going to go very well for him. It’s an extreme measure, you see, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Because of how extreme it is, it’s going to be challenged in the courts:

1. Texas property owners will challenge it because it threatens to result in their property being confiscated via eminent domain. Texas has more privately-owned land along the border than any other state, and the border there is along a river, meaning a wall threatens to cut farmers and ranchers off from a source of water in an arid or semiarid climate.
2. The usual suspects (i.e. liberals) will of course litigate it.
3. Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, will litigate as well. Congress has standing in this case; the state of emergency is an attack on the clearly-enumerated constitutional powers of Congress.
4. When it ends up in the Supreme Court, even the right-wing justices are unlikely to see it in as charitable a light as Trump’s Muslim ban. The sole exception is Kavanaugh, who might be enough of a Trump puppet to go along with it. That means the best case outcome for Trump in the Supreme Court is probably an 8–1 loss.

More on the Supremes: The conservative justices are unlikely to be fans of the measure because of the precedent it sets: they don’t want a future Democratic president using states of emergency to bypass a Republican congress. (If left unchallenged, this would probably happen sooner rather than later, because divided government has been the rule, not the exception, since the 1970’s.)

That latter reason means that some GOP senators are likely to find their spine and oppose the state of emergency in the Senate, when the House sends the Senate a resolution disapproving of it. So it’s going to sew discord within the president’s own party.

This all proves, once again, that Trump is not an evil genius. If he were an evil genius, he would have avoided setting all sorts of traps for himself on the border wall issue. He would have taken some budget funding more border barriers, probably one funding them more generously than what Congress just passed (because a solidly Republican Congress would have passed it), as a sign that the wall is being built, and would have strutted around and proclaimed victory, probably with a victory speech along an existing stretch of border wall.

Published at 08:14 on 2 February 2019

Northam’s reaction proves his superiority to Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh lied about and denied his past. When confronted with the evidence, Northam confessed it and expressed contrition for it.

Northam’s reaction proves his superiority to Trump.

Trump expressed no contrition about the Access Hollywood tapes.

The Democrats’ reaction proves their superiority to the Republicans.

There’s already been widespread condemnation of Northam and calls for him to resign from his own party. Contrast with widespread support for Kavanaugh and attacks on his accusers on the Republican side. Contrast with how Republicans stuck with Trump after the Access Hollywood tapes came out.

It’s not just his conduct in medical school.

Northam’s nickname while at Virginia Military Institute was “Coonman.” That not only shows the yearbook photo wasn’t an isolated incident, it points to which of the two figures in it he probably is.

It’s a shock it took so long for the above to be discovered.

Ralph Northam has run in elections since 2007. An old yearbook isn’t that obscure a thing. It’s a standard campaign tactic to go digging for dirt on your opponents. So, it’s a mystery that it took so long for this thing to come to light.

Northam is toast.

He’s still refusing to resign, but given how widespread the calls for his resignation are, he won’t last.

Published at 09:02 on 29 January 2019

First, they show that self-proclaimed political moderates can be as ideologically biased, to the point of ignoring obvious political truths, as adherents of either the left or the right. This, despite moderates continually trying to proclaim themselves as intellectually superior because their position in the middle of the spectrum supposedly insulates them from such blindness.

No, it doesn’t. Just look at how Schultz is blissfully in denial about how his campaign is objectively pro-Trump, because it will help split the anti-Trump vote. If Trump were a garden-variety Republican, I’d be more likely to tolerate such denial. The two-party system is unduly restrictive of ideological diversity; as such, I have often been a supporter of candidates to the left of the Democrats. Ultimately, each candidate is responsible for the votes he or she did or did not receive.

But these are not normal times. Trump is not a garden-variety Republican. There is a need for a popular front against Trump’s fascism. This requires sacrifice from all in the front. (You think I enjoy the prospect of for once supporting an establishment Democratic Party candidate? Think again.)

Second, that Schultz is either incapable of or unwilling to make such considerations points to his own unfitness for the office he seeks. That’s above and beyond my dislike for any candidate that runs as a capitalist who believes the rich should continue to be taxed very lightly.

The rules of the US political system are rigged to the benefit of two parties. That sucks, but that’s also the way it is. If Schultz wants to be something other than an objectively pro-Trump force, he should choose which party he wants to affiliate with, and participate in its primary process. I’ll even hold my nose and support him in November, 2020 if he chooses the Democrats and prevails in their primary.

But as it stands, with Schultz planning an independent candidacy, I will see him as the active force for evil and fascism that he has proved himself to be.

Published at 17:13 on 25 January 2019

And it worked out spectacularly well for them: they got everything they wanted out of the standoff. This could prove to be a real watershed moment.

First, Mitch McConnell is a long-time skeptic about government shutdowns, believing they are far more likely to hurt than help the fortunes of those who instigate them (typically, Republicans). Like most Republicans, he has become cowed by Trump. Now, Trump’s strategy has blown up. This is likely to cause McConnell revert to old form on shutdowns, and smack down any future talk from Trump about such things. And McConnell has the power to smack such talk down, hard: threaten to pass a bipartisan CR with a veto-proof majority. Give Trump the choice between the humiliation of backing down and signing or the greater humiliation of a veto override. Or, more likely: backing down, hushing up the private conversation in which the threat was made, and publicly professing support for the CR. (In fact, exactly such a scenario might have been what prompted Trump to cave today.)

Second, assume an alternate history in which the Democrats caved. Trump would have been rewarded for his bluster. He has just learned by experience that he has an ace up his sleeve by which to cow Pelosi into obeying his will. What are the odds he’d continue to play that particular card? Near certain, of course. Democrats would then lurch from defeat to bitter defeat. Result: dispirited Democrats and a rejuvenated and Trumpier-than-ever GOP. This would pave the way not only for a long series of legislative defeats, but for a defeat in 2020. (Why, after all, should voters support a party that is repeatedly demonstrating the depths of its own craven ineptitude?)

This time, thankfully, the wise choice was made.

Published at 09:39 on 25 January 2019

Just how is left-wing authoritarianism even a thing? I’m not denying it is actually a thing; I’m wondering how it can be. And if your blood pressure is rising rapidly to the boiling point at the mere mention of the phrase “left-wing authoritarianism,” then just consider the decades-long history of the USSR and its all-too-large retinue of political sycophants.

For me the essence of what “the left” is goes right back to the origin of the terms left and right in a political context: the French Revolution. Actually, it predates the French Revolution: there has been a very long tradition of the right side being the favored side and the left being the disfavored one, which is probably grounded in the simple fact that most humans are right-handed. This led to a tradition, in the West at least, of those with the most favor of the monarch sitting to his or her right in court. When parliaments evolved, that led to a tradition of the regime’s supporters sitting to the monarch’s right in parliament.

So when the Estates General was finally reconvened in response to growing unrest after decades of being moribund, those who supported the ancien regime sat in the accustomed place for such parliamentarians. They became referred to as “the right” and their opponents “the left.” These terms have stayed with us to the present day.

At the core of being a leftist, then, is being against the ruling establishment, whatever that establishment happens to be in the current social context. Or perhaps I should say at the core of being a leftist for me, because it is clear that is not the case in general (if it were, left-wing authoritarianism would not exist, being a contradiction in terms).

Again, you can trace it right back to the days of the French Revolution, in this case how that revolution went seriously wrong and degenerated into a Reign of Terror, wherein the professed revolutionaries had become a new and tyrannical ruling class. At that point, suddenly being “on the left” meant being a loyal and fervent supporter of organized, corecive authority. At least, it did for many.

I think the only thing it can be chalked up to is an aspect of human nature; namely, how conformity leads people to respect and follow leaders. It’s the same troublesome thing that makes authority and hierarchy so tragically easy to evolve and persist in the first place. Whether one’s political proclivities lead one to consider this aspect a bug or a feature, it should be clear from any study of human history that it is very much a thing.

So there’s my answer. Like many answers, it begs a question: what can we do about it? I could now go on to answer that, but instead I think I’ll close and let the reader think about it for a while.

Published at 17:01 on 24 January 2019

So, it looks like the Chávez-Maduro regime in Venezuela is on the ropes yet again. Some points:

1. Realize that we’ve been here before, only to see the regime bounce back. So don’t think this is necessarily the regime’s last days.
2. Those reading this who count themselves, as I do, as among the regime’s opponents should realize that the USA’s very blemished record of intervention in Latin America means it’s best to stand back, play a supporting role, and let other Latin American nations (of which there are a number interested in doing so) take the lead in this.
3. Those reading this who count themselves as among the regime’s supporters should study its record better and realize how bad the regime there really is, and how much of the problems there are the fault of the government, its corruption, its authoritarianism, and its mismanagement. Start by going here and studying Amnesty International’s reports on Venezuala from about 2004 onwards.

Per that third point, compare and contrast Venezuela with Bolivia, which although it has growing problems with authoritarianism of its own, has still been much better at managing economic policy than Venezuela․ Bolivia has managed to make significant progress against poverty and inequality without crashing the economy․

Published at 12:03 on 23 January 2019

It has for some time been remarkable that the right has been so obsessed about her; it’s as if she lives in right-wing pundits’ heads rent free. Now the global Davos elite is throwing shade her way. More significantly, she’s secured an appointment to the powerful House Oversight Committee.

Remember, she’s just a single freshman Representative, one who was politically a complete nobody just over a year ago. I can’t think of anyone else who has acquired so much power in Congress so rapidly.