Cold War 2.0?

So a lot of Americans are pissed off at the Russian government right now.  It's now clear that Putin and his cronies played a non-insignificant part in shaping the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.  Which means that Russia is at least partly responsible for saddling us with an indisputably terrible president.  What's worse, they took away Americans' trust in the electoral process.  Not only is the 2016 election tainted with perceptions of illegitimacy, but there will be a cloud of suspicion hanging over future elections - especially since the government doesn't appear to be doing enough to safeguard the integrity of the voting process.  On top of all that, Russia did more than interfere in the electoral process.  It also stirred up a lot of ill will and worsened the country's polarization.  Look around, listen to what people are saying and read the comments they're leaving on social media: Americans are deeply divided, usually over Trump's policies and conduct.  The fact is, Russia hit us pretty hard, and Americans are right to be furious.

However, there are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the US Government has done its own share of meddling in other countries' elections.  I don't say that to defend what the Russian government did, but instead to point out the hypocrisy involved.  Our government doesn't have the moral high ground here, not even by claiming it was done for "very good reasons." It's also hard to promote democracy in other countries while helping to undermine it in those same places.  Now that we're getting a taste of our own medicine, we're realizing how much it sucks. 

Second, whether unintentionally or deliberately, our government has antagonized Russia several times since the end of the Cold War.  Military alliances and campaigns such as the bombing campaign against Serbia (a staunch Russian ally) and the ongoing military presence in the Balkans, the NATO expansion, and attacks against Russia's former allies, including Iraq, have all been perceived as insults at best and provocations at worse.  To get some perspective, imagine how we would feel if the Russian military had done the following: formed a military alliance with Canada, Mexico, and several Latin American nations; bombed and occupied Great Britain; and attacked Israel twice in thirteen years.  I think we'd feel more than a little threatened.

Third, and probably most important, Russia didn't create this mess out of thin air.  It recognized that America was already pretty divided on many issues, and it poured gasoline on a low-grade fire.  There were still healthy feelings of Islamophobia, homophobia, and racial tensions; media outlets willing to publish divisive "news" for ratings and revenue; a decades-long feeling of economic anxiety due to stagnant salaries or poverty wages, growing economic inequality, outsourcing, rising expenses, and ballooning government deficits; civil liberties being chipped away; and the perception of an indifferent political class.  2016 was the "anti-establishment" election; and Hillary Clinton was perceived by some parts of the country as being a significant part of the problem.  Russia simply observed the American political and cultural landscape, and saw its opening.

Russia isn't the only one who sees an opening, though.  The Russian electoral meddling has given a lot of anti-Russian hawks the pretext they've been waiting for to resume the Cold War, people like John "I never met a war I didn't like" Bolton.  You remember him, right? He was George W. Bush's Ambassador to the UN, he was super-hawkish, and he helped sell the flimsy Iraqi WMD intelligence.  Why anyone still listens to him at all is a mystery, yet The Hill recently allowed him to write an op-ed, in which he wrote, "The White House can and should now pivot to the real task ahead, which is dealing strategically and comprehensively with Russia's global efforts to enhance its influence." There are other semi-influential people like Bolton in the Beltway, and they're drooling over the possibility of a confrontation with Russia.  Judging by her policy ideas, Hillary Clinton was one of them - which was one reason I didn't vote for her. Readopting a belligerent posture toward Russia also gives the anti-Russian crowd to downplay or distract people from domestic problems, and considering how many problems this country has, a useful distraction would probably be welcomed by some people.

America has already been through one Cold War, and it wasn't very fun for most people: the threat of nuclear annihilation, anti-Communist witch hunts and infringements on civil liberties, an multi-decade arms race, money diverted away from schools/hospitals/infrastructure/etc, and so on.  Plus, America has a lot of problems at home to solve, and the last thing we need is to focus our attention and resources on an adversary thousands of miles away.  So, let's not do that again, okay?

The Political Fallout from the GOP Tax Bill

So, Congressional Republicans went ahead and passed their controversial tax bill.  The bill economists overwhelmingly described as a bad idea.  The one that doesn't really do what it claims.  The one that's a massive financial giveaway to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of millions of middle- and lower-class workers.  They even passed it a few days before Christmas, possibly as an added "F.U." to all the people this bill hurts. So why did they do it? Why did they pass such a disastrous, harmful bill? The possibilities are: they don't know how unpopular it is, they think it actually helps, or they don't think there will be political consequences.

I don't think the GOP was blind to the bill's unpopularity, because it was honestly pretty hard to miss.  When was the last time a tax cut was unpopular? People lose their shit over tax hikes, but cuts are generally pretty popular.  Yet this tax bill polled at a 25% popularity rating.  That should tell you something right there.  Now, public opinion isn't a reliable basis for making political decisions, by which I mean a piece of legislation's popularity doesn't tell you a lot about its contents. How much do those poll participants know about the intricacies of tax policy? (Side note: an uninformed and easily swayed electorate was one reason Aristotle opposed basic democracy - which I mentioned before.) Those people probably could not articulate the consequences of this tax bill the way a tax lawyer or an economist could, which is why this bill's popularity rating is somewhat irrelevant.  This doesn't mean the bill's unpopularity should be discounted, because the GOP is pitching a story we've seen before.  We saw it in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan's "Trickle Down" Economics, and we saw it again a few years ago in Kansas.  It ended badly both times, and despite Americans' short memories, we still remember how things turned out.  The GOP is promising things will be different this time, but people aren't buying their bullshit.

So average Americans kinda knew that this bill would be bad for them, although in an imprecise way, which explains its unpopularity.  Maybe they didn't convey those sentiments to their elected officials? It's possible.  Several GOP Senators and Representatives have bailed on townhall meetings with their constituents in recent months, so the chance of having in-person meetings has gone down.  That still leaves phone calls, emails, and social media posts, but I don't know how many Americans reached out to their representatives.  In the past, Congressional offices were flooded with phone calls when the GOP attempted to repeal the ACA.  I don't know if it was the same this time.  I called my representative in the House this morning, and was able to get through easily; my experience is anecdotal, but I think it could've been a sign that not many people were calling.  I honestly would not be surprised: people have had to push back against the GOP's harmful policies a couple times already since January, and fatigue might be setting in.  It's exhausting watching the news like a hawk, waiting for the next shoe to drop, and having to contact your reps to ask them to not strip away programs that Americans depend on for basic needs again and again and again.  It wears you down over time.  That's just a possible explanation, but I don't think the GOP was unaware of their bill's unpopularity.

Could the GOP think it helps? I don't see it.  I've seen GOP figures make statements like these:

• "A married couple earning $100,000 per year ($60,000 from wages, $25,000 from their non-corporate business, and $15,000 in business income) will receive a tax cut of $2,603.50, a reduction of nearly 24 percent." - Texas Senator John Cornyn
• "The typical family of four making the typical family income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $2,059." - Speaker of the House Paul Ryan 

Cornyn's statements show he has no idea what the average American's financial situation is, so no wonder he thinks this tax cut is helpful.  At least Paul Ryan had a reasonably close idea of what the average American's household income is, he was still a bit off: according to the US Census Bureau via USA Today, the average household income was $74,000.  To break that figure down a bit further, a household filing jointly earns $118,000; and a household filing separately earns $65,000.  Still, he's overestimating the tax bill's benefit by using some clever math.  Specifically, emphasizing the average tax benefit.  Why does "average" matter? Well, did you know that between me and Tom Brady, we've won an average of 2.5 Super Bowls? So, yeah, "average" isn't the best way to determine the tax bill's benefit.  Here's a better one.

 

(Graphic courtesy of NPR and the Tax Policy Center)

Here's a link to the full report, if you want it.  It's pretty easy to see how tilted this tax bill is toward high earners, and it gets even more unequal when you look at how much the bill saves lower income brackets.  If you're in the $40K - $50K range, your annual benefit is a whopping $570.  Divide that by twelve, and the monthly benefit is $47.50.  How far does $48 go? Two tanks of gas? One month's phone bill? That's insulting no matter what your status is. But no, the GOP couldn't stop there.  Did I mention that some of the tax cuts expire in a few years, while the corporate ones are permanent? Yeah, nice.  Maybe they do think it actually helps - see Cornyn's and Ryan's statements earlier - but I think it's more likely they're engaging in some high-level bullshitting.

That leaves another possibility, that the GOP doesn't think there will be political consequences.  They could be banking on Americans forgetting about this tax bill by the 2018 elections, which is a possibility given Americans' short memories.  They could also be underestimating the Democrats, which could be a possibility - the Democrats are still plagued by infighting and aimlessness a year after the Presidential election.  However, the recent Alabama Senate race and the earlier elections in Virginia and other places show that the Democrats have something working, even if they don't know what it is.  The point is, the momentum is in the Democrats' favor, and despite them not capitalizing on the GOP's and Trump's ineptness and unpopularity, they appear likely to win big in 2018.  If that happens, the Democrats will almost certainly repeal the GOP tax bill.

So why would the GOP pass a hugely unpopular bill, that doesn't help most Americans at all, and will probably be repealed in just a few years? There's another possibility, and it kind of ties into the GOP believing there won't be any political consequences.  That is that the GOP expects to lose, and they'll come out relatively unscathed on the other side of the elections.  They'll have cushy jobs or fat retirement accounts waiting for them, and that's a pretty sweet deal for them.  They'll be reviled by many Americans for at least a while, but our opinions don't matter because they don't give a rat's ass about us "commoners".  They probably have their own upscale gated community picked out already, so they won't have to mingle with us. 

Honestly, I'd be okay with that.  It's galling to think they'll get by without facing any serious consequences for treating the people they were supposed to represent with disdain that borders on cruelty, but when you look at it, it's a win all around.  They go away and stay out of our lives, and their obnoxious bill gets repealed in a year or so (as long as the Democrats don't find a way to bungle what should be a legislative rout). 

So, buckle up, I guess.  It's gonna be a bumpy ride for the next year or so, but it should get a bit smoother after that.

PS: Don't screw this up, Democrats.