Crisis Fatigue

I guess I ought to say something about the sequester, but I'm not entirely sure why.  According to various polling groups, most Americans are not paying a hell of a lot of attention.  More than anything, that seems to be due to crisis fatigue.  Americans have approached the edges of too many cliffs in recent years, and seem most inclined to close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, and sing, "Lah lah lah lah lah I can't hear you!"

40% of those who might be paying attention, according to the pollsters, think we just should go over the cliff and see if we bounce.  The economists say we won't bounce, but might not leave too deep a dent behind.  The biggest losers are likely to be defense contractors, so a lot of liberals don't much care.  A lot of conservatives just want less government, and they're not too particular about how it happens.  The fact that sequestration was designed to be stupid and mutually destructive to both parties apparently has been forgotten.

Then there are the politics.  It looks like more people will blame Republicans than Democrats for whatever damage is done, but the truth is that the battle was lost by the Democrats in 2010 — when Republican candidates won over so many state legislatures and control over redistricting.  Far too many of those Republican House seats are far too safe now, and will be until 2020.  Maybe, had Obama been less of a "compromise seeker" and more of a populist, that wouldn't have happened.

You can't "postdict" the past any better than you can predict the future.  All we can say right now is that most Americans are sick of it.

2010

Yes, it was a pretty crappy year.

Our President spent the year sucking up to Wall Street again, except for a couple of days when he tried to sound like the populist he pretended to be pre-election. Bad couple of days, Barack — you got those Wall Street boys all mad at you and they started tossing all the taxpayer money you gave them at the Republicans. With a little help from the Supreme Court, they took the House, and all the ass kissing you've done since has been to no avail.

Now that long-term unemployment lasts longer than ever before — at least since it's been measured, which was roughly when the Great Depression ended — it's nice to have a new statistic that allows people to be unemployed longer than 99 weeks. It's also nice of you to remind us how the private sector keeps adding jobs, even if it's not fast enough to accommodate the young people entering the workforce, and even if the public sector is cutting jobs faster than the private sector is adding them.

Did Larry Summers and Tim Geithner remind you to cash in those municipal bonds before they default? Probably not. They don't work for you, Barack, they work for Wall Street.

Fuck bipartisanship — we really didn't need that tax cut legislation. As for "postpartisanship" — well, that best describes both major parties pole dancing for Wall Street, each hoping for a few more bucks tucked into its g-string than might be tucked into the g-string of the other.

***

By the way, I turn 65 in January, and I have decided to officially declare myself the very first Baby Boomer ever. It is a serious responsibility, and I intend to fulfill it by being a total pain in the ass.

The Plan for Afghanistan

Well, I suppose it's nice that there's some kind of plan for the continuing US involvement in Afghanistan, even though I'm afraid it was shaped at least as much by domestic politics as by any sort of strategic considerations or overriding international objectives. As usual, the President weaseled down the middle: he offered up three-quarters of the troops the military (and the Republicans) wanted, plus a probably futile attempt to get the other 10 thousand from NATO; a promise to start drawing down troops in 18 months; and an unenforceable threat against Hamid Karzai that is very unlikely to persuade someone quite so corrupt to crack down on corruption.

Here's my prediction: eighteen months from now, the usual warlords will continue to be the real rulers of the Afghan countryside, although, if we're lucky, some will be nominally on our side rather than nominally supporting the Taliban. If we're really lucky, the major population centers the administration plan seeks to protect will be a little safer, although protecting a city like Kabul against suicide bombers requires a degree of authoritarian rigor likely to be beyond the powers of Karzai and McChrystal.

The generals, as usual, will be whining for more troops. Generals don't understand "relatively positive outcomes" — they're taught to believe in an obscure 19th century concept called "victory." Of course, even in the 19th century, nobody achieved that in Afghanistan.

Most important, though, the 2010 elections will be over, and the 2012 elections still will be roughly half a year away. There will be time to maneuver around both contests. What else matters? Both parties are committed to enhancing the prospects for their major contributors, so, of course, the rest of us are left eating their shit.

As for how to go about financing the new Afghan "surge," Obama was totally vague. Here's a suggestion: how about a tax surcharge on war profiteers? Some have done extraordinarily well, especially with their connections to both government and military decision makers. To me, it makes sense to spread some of the pain to those who raked in the profits from Bush's wars.

Want to end all the current bullshit? Easy. Bring back the draft.