The View from Right Field

An Alternate Covid History

Here’s a thought experiment or maybe, more accurately, a possible alternate history of Covid in the United States:

• Donald Trump wins re-election in November of 2020.  (It was possible.  As I noted here, Joe Biden’s margin of victory was only 66,000 votes.¹)

Helping the Rich, Democratic-Style

House Democrats finally passed, 220 to 213, President Biden’s $1.8 trillion¹ “Build Back Better” plan.  You have to be a political geek to know what’s in it, though it doesn’t really matter yet because the Senate hasn’t passed it.  They’re going to make changes in it, and then it will have to go back to the House for another vote.  So, trying to figure out what is in it at this point doesn’t make all that much sense.  The only things we know for sure are that (i) the price tag is totally made up, (ii) the revenue it raises is calculated on bases that won’t actually happen, and (iii) there won’t be any unexpected consequences because if you don’t know what is in the bill, you can’t know what is expected, and if you don’t know what is expected, there can’t be anything unexpected.

Still, one thing we do know about what the Democrats are doing is who is going to benefit.  And that is the upper middle class.  The Biden/Pelosi bill increases the limit on the amount of state and local taxes you can deduct from $10,000 per year to $80,000.  With a standard deduction of about $25,000, this won’t help average people – or even somewhat above average people.  It’s just a tax break for the upper middle class, especially those in states that have high local taxes (i.e., states with Democratic governors and legislatures).

The Diversity We Are Missing Today

In of his new book, Three Days at Camp David: How a Secret Meeting in 1971 Transformed the Global Economy, Jeffrey Garton writes about the meetings at Camp David on August 13 to 15, 1971, when Richard Nixon and small group of advisers¹ broke the link between gold and the US dollar (i.e., “closing the gold window”), instituted wage-and-price controls, and more.²  In describing the meeting Mr. Garton emphasizes there was a real diversity among those present.  It was not, course, a diversity of race or sex.  They were all white men.  (It was, after all, 1971.)  But there was a diversity of viewpoints.  Coming into the meeting, some opposed wage-and-price controls (President Nixon had always opposed them because of his experience in the Office of Price Administration in 1942); some were okay with them.  Some thought we needed to close the gold window immediately; others wanted to do the rest of the program and then wait and see.  The investment tax credit, which had recently been repealed, was to be reinstated.  The key was that a number of people with different viewpoints met, talked, and in a weekend came up with a set of policies to change the world economic system.³

Communist. Fascist. Racist. What’s Next?

From what I read in the newspaper and hear on the radio, apparently I am a racist because I am not in favor of changing the name of Lake Shore Drive to Jean Baptiste Point DuSable Drive.¹  The fact that “Lake Shore Drive” is a classic Chicago street name, known pretty much around the world, right up there with “State Street, that great street,” and “Michigan Drive, the Magnificent Mile,” doesn’t matter.  Jean Baptiste Point DuSable was a Black Haitian and not wanting to name Lake Shore Drive after him is racist.²  It’s sort of like Humpty Dumpty:

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that's all.’”

Writing Constitutions – And Judging Those Who Write Them

This week’s Economist has a review of Linda Colley’s new book on the history of written constitutions, The Gun, the Ship and the Pen.  The book covers the writing of constitutions from the middle of the eighteenth century to the present.  According to the review:

“Above all, Ms Colley argues, the need for innovative, written constitutionalism was driven by the evolving nature of war. … Governments’ need for ever-more manpower to fight these wars – and ever-growing tax revenues to pay for them – led to crises at home that could only be tackled by the concession of new rights and promises of wider political participation. … 

Bringing Us Together: We Have to Do It Ourselves

In his Inaugural Address, Joe Biden talked about how he wanted to bring us together:

“My whole soul is in this.  Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation. And I ask every American to join me in this cause. …

And so today at this time in this place, let's start afresh, all of us.  Let's begin to listen to one another again, hear one another, see one another.  Show respect to one another.”

I hope he can do it.  He seems like a nice guy (I talked about this before, so I won’t repeat myself).  What I would say, though, is while I hope President Biden can help to bring us together, it’s not something he can do himself.  It’s something we have to do ourselves.

How Will Their Great-Grandchildren Look at Today’s Woke Leaders?

One of the favorite activities of the woke seems to be looking back in history and re-judging our leaders of the past based on the standards today.  George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves; their statues have to come down.  Abraham Lincoln didn’t treat Native Americans right, not to mention all of the racist things he said; schools need to be renamed.  Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave¹; his statue must come down.  And so on.  It is never a matter of looking at the total of what these people did or looking at what they did in light of the times in which they lived.  Or even looking to see if they helped push the direction of history a little bit in the right direction.  If they didn’t fully live up to our standards today, their statue comes down; the school is renamed. 

The Washington 180 – Part Two: Special Counsel

A week and a half ago I wrote about what I called “The Washington 180.”  In that post, I talked about the issuance of nationwide injunctions by federal district courts and how Democrats and Republicans felt about them – and how their opinions might change once Joe Biden is inaugurated.  Democrats who thought it was great when federal district courts issued nationwide injunctions to stop things the Trump administration was trying to do might not like it so much if a federal district court issues a nationwide injunction against something the Biden administration is trying to do.  On the other hand, Republicans who thought it was horrible when nationwide injunctions were issued by federal district courts against Trump administration actions might think it’s great if they are issued against the Biden administration.

Here is another Washington 180 that will be coming: special counsels.  Democrats loved special counsels when Robert Mueller was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and Russia-Trump collusion.  Democrats thought special counsels were a necessary check.  They warned Republicans – and President Trump – not to interfere with the Mueller investigation.  Republicans didn’t agree, to say the least.

The Washington 180 – Once Again

With Joe Biden being elected President and the Republicans very possibly keeping a majority in the Senate,¹ we may have another “Washington 180” coming up next year. 

After the Republicans took the House in 2010, Barack Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass his agenda.  When Congress wouldn’t pass the laws he wanted, President Obama turned to what he called his “pen and phone.”²  Sometimes, departments and agencies followed the Administrative Procedure Act and adopted formal regulations.  Other times, they just issued new interpretations of laws or prior regulations.  Or they sent so-called “Dear Colleagues” letters to state and local governments setting out new rules, with an implied threat to cut off federal funding if they didn’t follow the new rules or standards.

Brett Kavanaugh: Thoughts on a Story That May Never End

While Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court, one assumes the controversy over his nomination will go on for a long time (forever-?), so it is probably not too late for me to make a few comments.

First, there is the question of whether we must automatically “Believe Women,” as a full-page ad said in The Wall Street Journal (and probably lots of other papers).¹  With respect to this question, Megan McArdle’s column in The Washington Post on Susan Collins’s vote on now-Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, talked about some things I hadn’t thought of before:

“Women know, in a visceral way that men never can, what it is like to live your life in consciousness of a single, inescapable fact: that virtually every man you meet is capable of physically overpowering you and taking what you won’t give them freely. We also know that if some man attacks us, it is likely to be in a private place, with no witnesses, and that the physical evidence will often be little different from the aftermath of consensual sex.