FIRING UP THE HOT STOVE LEAGUE

Let me begin by asserting two propositions that are, in my judgment, incontrovertible.

1.  If Clinton is elected president, under the best of circumstances the Democrats will take back control of the Senate but still fall far short of regaining the House.  Therefore, Clinton will be utterly unable to shepherd incrementally progressive legislation to enactment.

2.  If Sanders is elected president, under the best of circumstances the Democrats will take back control of the Senate  but still fall far short of regaining the House.  Therefore, Sanders will be utterly unable to shepherd radically progressive legislation to enactment.

What then would be the differences between a Clinton and a Sanders presidency?  I suggest there would be two major differences, and possibly a third more important still.

A.  Clinton would use the considerable executive authority of the presidency to deal lightly and favorably with Wall Street, in a manner that they would find comfortable.  Sanders would use the considerable executive authority of the presidency to deal harshly with Wall Street, in a manner that would seriously interfere with their ability to milk the economy while risking another meltdown.

B.  Clinton would embrace the Imperial project that has defined American foreign policy under all presidents since Truman.  Sanders would adopt as non-imperialist a foreign policy as he could get away with without being impeached.

C.  Clinton would do absolutely nothing to stimulate, encourage, or lead a movement designed to make radical changes in the orientation and distribution of power in the American political system.  Sanders might undertake, as president, to lead such a movement.

These three differences lead me to conclude that Sanders would be a significantly better president than Clinton.

Now let me offer an opinion about which, I am well aware, there is considerable disagreement on the far left, where I hang my hat.

It matters greatly whether the Democrats or Republicans win the election for president.  I do not want to argue for that opinion here.  I have defended it elsewhere on this blog.

Thus, I [but perhaps not you] must ask:  Which candidate, Clinton or Sanders, has the better chance to win?  This strikes me as a much harder question to answer than the generality  of political commentators suppose.  In my judgment, Clinton would do better than Sanders against Rubio, and both of them would be able to defeat Cruz.  But I also think Sanders would do better against Trump than Clinton.  What leads me to these conclusions?

Against Rubio:  Rubio would run a smooth, conventional center-right campaign, trimming back to the middle on immigration and expressing hawkish sentiments acceptable to the electorate.  Clinton would run a center-left campaign, emphasizing experience and making as much as possible of the fact that she is a woman.  Rubio would not do well with Hispanic-Americans, who are well aware of the unique and not much beloved position of Cuban-Americans in that community.   Sanders and Warren would campaign vigorously for Clinton, and she would very probably win a strong but not overwhelming victory.  Sanders, on the other hand, would be tarred and feathered as a commie [the hammer and sickle are already on exhibit], and would not have the unquestioning loyalty of the African-American voters.

Against Cruz:  Cruz would run a hard-right campaign, and as Americans got to know him, they would come to loathe him as much as his Senate colleagues do.  He would lose badly.

Against Trump [who still is, in my judgment, the probably nominee]:  Clinton, I fear, would do badly against Trump.  She is an awkward campaigner who does not inspire affection, and she would be vulnerable to Trump's non-stop outrageous personal attacks.  I think he might destroy her.  Sander s would be completely invulnerable to Trump's style of attack.  Aside from his age, there is really nothing personal about him that could be a target for Trump.  Sanders would leach away some of the working-class White support that has buoyed the Republicans for decades now, potentially winning a big victory.

What to do?  Wait and see who gets the nomination, I guess.

KEEPING IT CLEAN

Wallace Stevens reports that my brief foray into obscenity triggered a filter in his internet provider that blocked my blog.  We cannot have that, so I have deleted the post and all the comments with the bad language.  Now I will go and wash my mouth out with soap.

QVELLING

I would just like to say that by all the evidence this blog has a pretty impressive readership.  As Spencer Tracy says of Katherine Hepburn in the great old classic movie Pat and Mike, "There ain't much meat on her, but what there is is cherce."

COMMENT ON A COMMENT

S. Wallerstein, writing from Chile [!!], has made several interesting comments lately.  Here is part of one just posted:

"I watched some Sanders' videos in YouTube and he talks a lot about fighting back and organizing against the elites, against big money and against a system which screws ordinary people, all of which I agree with. However, that kind of talk must freak Krugman out, since Krugman, although anti-neoliberal, is the kind of intellectual who sees all change as coming from enlightened elites, people with Ph.D.'s from top universities and for Krugman, the masses organizing and fighting back must seem uncouth."

I think that is spot-on [as we used to say] about Krugman.  One of the things I really like about Piketty is that after bagging the dream job in the MIT Economics Department at a young age, he walked away from it and went back to France.  He did not exactly rusticate, but it took guts to turn his back on the premier department in the world.  Krugman, by contrast, seems to me to be a supremely smart, naturally progressive careerist.  His contempt for Very Important People [until he became one] is quite consistent with that careerism, because the reference group whose good opinion he seeks and cherishes is not public figures or opinion leaders but rather essentially the Mass Avenue bubble with Harvard at one end and MIT at the other.  That is a bubble I know quite well.

I do wonder, as was suggested, whether he secretly hopes for a plum job in a Clinton Administration.  That wouldn't surprise me at all, nor would I be surprised to learn that behind-the-scenes conversations have already been initiated.  Indeed, he may have been wooed by the Clintons, who are way shrewder than Krugman is about these matters, so that he may not even have been aware that he was being seduced.

MOVING ALONG

Lecture Five in the Ideological Critique series has been recorded and will be posted this Friday. Half way through!  Whew, this is a real challenge, but I have mastered the technical side of things, at long last.

I think I have finally had it with Krugman, whom I have been reading for a while now.  He is just too much a flack for Clinton.  He is also very thin-skinned about the criticism he is receiving for that choice.  

Even if Bernie does not win the nomination, which I assume he will not, he has changed the character of the public conversation dramatically.  Not too bad for a 74 year old Jewish socialist from Vermont.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

I assume everyone who cares knows the results of the Iowa caucuses.  The unexpectedly strong showing of Rubio makes me very nervous, because I think Clinton is vulnerable to a standard conservative Republican.  If  Rubio now gathers to himself all of the "establishment" Republican votes, he may manage to win the nomination.  I am pleased that Trump handled the loss well, since I want him to win the nomination and destroy the Republican Party.  I still think he is the odds-on favorite to win the nomination unless his fervent supporters now abandon him.

Bernie's showing was extraordinary.  It is a shame that raw vote totals are not reported on the Democratic side.  I would be willing to bet many, many more people caucused for him than for Clinton,

Here is an odd fact I picked up early this morning from the commentary.  There were five Democratic caucus sites where the actual vote was even, and by Party rules, a coin toss determined which candidate got the extra odd State Caucus delegate.  Clinton won all five of those coin tosses!!!   Bernie should have remembered to sacrifice a goat to the gods.

BRIAN LEITER NAILS IT

Professor Brian Leiter of the University of Chicago, known to many of you from the Leiter Reports, has this piece on the Huffington Post today that says things I have long believed better than I could say them.  I urge you to take a look at it today as the caucuses and primaries begin.