My Amazon Review of Michael Beschloss' "Presdents of War"

Making War

Historian and media personality Michael Beschloss has written an important history of how and why presidents took us to war and of their wartime decision making process from Madison to Johnson. He is at is best in discussing the role of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. His “tick-tock” of how the Gulf of Tonkin resolution came to be is worth the price of the book. He is very clear that the Johnson administration was deceitful from Day One when they knew in their heart of hearts the war wasn’t winnable. Where I would fault him is that he does not lay enough of a predicate as to the role of John Kennedy in the lead up to the war. After all Johnson was continuing Kennedy’s very aggressive policy with respect to Vietnam.

Beschloss opens his book at the end of the Jefferson administration in 1807 and then fully discusses Madison’s role in the War of 1812. To me he is not critical enough of Madison and Jefferson. In my mind both were guilty of dereliction of duty in failing to maintain adequate naval strength while both Britain and France were raiding our ships and impressing our seaman. They both, having witnessed the Seven Years War that a generalized European conflict would sooner or later make its appearance in the Americas.  Although England was not directly threatening the U.S., Madison was egged on by the “war hawks” Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun to declare war. Be that as it may for the young trading nation that the U.S. was, the principle of freedom of the seas was worth going to war over.

He next is very critical of James K. Polk. To be sure Polk created an incident to trigger the Mexican War and lied to the American people about it, but to my mind Polk was the Bismarck of North America. Polk had the strategic vision that a war with Mexico would bring with it the entire southwest as well as California. He was fulfilling “manifest destiny,” a term that came into use during his administration. But before Polk could go to war with Mexico he had to settle up the Oregon dispute with Great Britain, which he did. Polk was smart enough to realize that U.S. could not fight a two front war against both Mexico and Britain.

Lincoln, of course, comes across as the great Civil War leader that he was. He does this not only by ultimate success on the battlefield, but by elevating the purpose of the war to give rise to “a new birth of freedom.” Unlike other presidents Lincoln was able to witness and agonize over battlefield casualties he was also able to be decisive.  Where I would be critical of Beschloss is that while the fighting was going on Lincoln pushed through Congress three great Hamiltonian projects, the Homestead Act, the Pacific Railway Act and the Morrill Act(land grant colleges), quite a domestic program. This distinguishes Lincoln from other presidents, where domestic engagements gave way to wartime exigencies.

Beschloss is kind to McKinley. After the sinking of the Maine (an accident) in Havana Harbor, he does not rush into war. However once engaged McKinley becomes an all-in imperialist by taking the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico. Intended or not with the Spanish American War the U.S. enter the world stage.

Beschloss likes Wilsonian policies, but he doesn’t seem to like Woodrow Wilson. He comes across as an arrogant intellectual and where Wilson demonstrated great political acumen in passing his domestic program, he is a complete disaster on the world stage. Wilson’s thought process on entering the war is a “theme park” (my words) for executive indecision. In his discussion of Wilson, Beschloss leaves out a lot. He ignores the role of the March Revolution in Russia that made it easier for Wilson to argue that he was “making the world safe for democracy.” He also ignores the challenge that Lenin brings with the November Revolution. Many historians believe that his 14 Points were a response to Lenin. He also only skims through the wave of domestic repression that took place during the war and immediately thereafter. And he ignores Wilson’s hidden agenda, which he accomplished, of orchestrating the transfer of economic power from London to New York.

Roosevelt, on the other hand learns from Wilson’s mistakes. Instead of trying to keep the U.S. out of the Second World War, he molds public opinion into acceptance of the inevitability of a war against fascism. He also brings the Republicans on board, both before and after, something Wilson refused to do. Roosevelt learned what not to do when he was an assistant secretary of the navy in the Wilson Administration. He also brings in the American people, with his fireside chats, into the vast theater of the global war.

Truman does not come off well. He doesn’t bring Congress into the process and that with hostile opposition from the likes of Taft and McCarthy leads to huge problems when the Korean War stalemates on the battlefield. After he rightfully fires General MacArthur his popularity plummets. It is a sad ending for someone who so clearly understood the Soviet menace in the late 1940s to see him so pilloried.

As I said at the outset Beschloss has written an important book, but as I noted he left out quite a bit and in many cases, especially with the earlier presidents he was way too detailed and the average lay reader will likely get bogged down in the weeds. Hence four stars, not five.

The full Amazon Review appears at the following URL: https://www.amazon.com/review/R107WQR5NDUEBL/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv

The Insurance Subsidy Behind the Horrific Malibu/Ventura Fires

The fires in California are horrific, but few realize that much of the housing in the fire zones of Malibu and Ventura County has been encouraged by the insurance subsidies coming from the FAIR Plan. Fire Insurance usually is hard to come by or extraordinarily expensive in areas subject to high fire danger. 

However California has something called the FAIR Plan which stands for fair access to insurance requirements. The program was initiated in 1966 after the Watts Riots to establish an insurance facility for inner city neighborhoods. It was expanded to cover the hillsides after the 1968 Bel-Aire fire. As a result a program to help poor homeowners and small businesses became a subsidy program for the wealthy.

The FAIR Plan works like the assigned risk programs for automobile insurance. As a practical matter  all insurance buyers are assessed to pay for the high risk assets and it is run by a consortium of insurance companies. The maximum amount covered is $1.5 million, but homeowners with the first loss covered can then buy wrap around policies to cover any excess.

Just like the federal flood insurance program subsidizes coastal development in flood prone areas, the FAIR Plan subsidizes development in fire prone areas. Perhaps it is time for the California Legislature to take another look at the program in light of what Governor Jerry Brown calls the "new abnormal."

The Coming Political Realignment: Part II

Two years ago I wrote that both the Republican and Democratic parties were hollowed out shells that would inevitably lead both to split up (See https://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-coming-political-realignment.html) I envisioned a Trumpian Jacksonian/Know Nothing Party ( hostile to nontraditional lifestyles, anti-immigration, anti-abortion protectionist,  isolationist and skeptical of environmental regulation with more than a tinge of racism in its strong white identity and supportive existing entitlement programs), a Right Hamiltonian Party consisting of establishment Republicans (business oriented conservatism favoring low taxes,  entitlement reform, open trade, high skilled immigration, live and let live social policies, moderate environmental regulation and an internationalist foreign policy), a Left Hamiltonian Party consisting of establishment Democrats (supportive of big government, friendly to finance Silicon Valley and Hollywood, open trade, skilled immigration,  pro-abortion, the regulatory state especially with respect to environmental regulation,, affirmative action, and thoroughly believe in the educational meritocracy that runs the country)  and a Social Democratic Party (hostility to capitalism, supportive of an expanded welfare state, pro-abortion, very pro-immigration,  great willingness to sacrifice the economy for the environment, and identity politics)  headed by a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren, for example.

What we learned from last week’s election is that the Republican Party as we knew it is dead and because there are so many moral eunuchs (i.e. Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham) cleaving to Trump there is little hope for the emergence of a Right Hamiltonian Party. Indeed the Republican Party has become irrelevant in California, New York and California and in practically every big city and is on its way there in many high income suburbs (witness Orange County, New Jersey, Philadelphia and yes Dallas and Houston for example). Thus the Right Hamiltonians in the Republican Party have two choices. They suck it up and betray everything they once believed in and stay with the Trumpians or they can find common cause with the Left Hamiltonians in the Democratic Party.

Such a move would be analogous to the neocons in the Democratic Party of the 1970's who bridled against the flaws in the Great Society, the failure of Keynesian economics and the weakness of the Carter foreign policy who then found a new home the party of Reagan. In fact it is many of the very same people who left the Democrats in the 1970’s and 80’s are now moving towards them.

While, for the most part, the Republicans welcomed their new converts with open arms, the same cannot be said of the Democratic Party as it is now constituted. Simply put the Social Democratic wing does not want them. Hence the Left Hamiltonians in the Democratic Party also have choice to make. Do they continue to make common cause with the activist Social Democratic wing or do they join with their natural allies, the Right Hamiltonians. And if they do, will the Social Democrats walk and form their own party. Of course the activist/Social Democratic wing might be powerful enough to kick out the establishment Democrats in an open convention. The underbelly of the Social Democrats is identity politics and taxation. There are simply too many identity politics erogenous zones to stroke to maintain coherence in one political party; it is too exhausting. Further the Left Hamiltonians won’t countenance the high rate of taxation required to enact the Social Democratic agenda.

The evidence from the election is that the far left candidates did rather poorly in competitive districts while the more establishment types cleaned the clocks of their Republican opponents. So my guess is that in 2020 instead of the drama being in the Republican Party all of the drama will shift to the Democrats where a split is inevitable, maybe not in 2020, but certainly by 2024.

How it all sorts remains open to too many questions, and this might be wishful thinking, the political party that rises above our current infatuation with the identity politics of both our current parties to become the party of E Pluribus Unum, out of many one, will become dominant. This was the insight of the 19^th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli where he linked the concerns of the elite with that of the masses under the slogan of “One Nation Conservatism.” The American version of this is as old as our Constitution, E Pluribus Unum.

After Action Report on the 2018 Elections

Shulmaven had a very good night. As of this morning it looks like the Democrats will pick up about 35 seats in the House inline with our forecast gain of 35-40; assuming Tester wins in Montana and McSally wins in Arizona the Republicans will pick up 3 Senate seats close to our forecast of a 1-2 seat gain and the Dems have gained seven governorships which is spot on with our forecast of a gain of 7-8 state houses. As we predicted the xenophobic Republican Kris Kobach would lose his governor race in very red Kansas and we just missed by about a percentage point that the Democrat Ned Lamont would lose his governor race in very blue Connecticut.

At least for the Democrats, money in politics was devalued. The big spending liberal trifecta of O'Rourke, Gillum and Abrams went down to defeat. Those defeats raise questions about where the big liberal donors will be in 2020. Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have to be rethinking their plans.

Given the antisemitic themes used by too many Republican house candidates it was heartening to see former synagogue president Jacky Rosen elected to to the Senate from Nevada. We also saw how important the Kavanaugh nomination fight was for the Republicans.  Democrats Heitkamp, Donnelly, and McCaskill all voted against Kavanaugh and went down to defeat. While Manchin who voted for him won in very red West Virginia. And don't forget Democrat Tester is hanging on by his fingernails.

Going forward we have ended up with a much more Trumpian Republican caucus which means that the wreckers in the House will gain ascendancy and the Senate aside from Mitt Romney will rollover for Trump on practically every issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have her work cut out for her in dealing with the loony left of her party and the wacko Republican caucus. At least the White House will face accountability as the subpoenas fly.

I follow up with future blog post on the coming realignment in American politics.

2018 Elections: A Long Night for the Republicans

Although my forecast for this Tuesday's elections is uncomfortably close to the consensus of the pundit class, I really do believe that the Democrats will do quite well and that the Republicans, especially those in the House and the state houses, will be crying in their beer. Given how strong the economy has been, by rights the Republicans should be cruising toward a huge victory, but this year it is certainly NOT "the economy stupid," it is instead "Trump, stupid."

On a seat by seat basis I have the Dems picking up 32 seats, but because most of the excitement is on their side, I think the Dem gains will be on the order of 35-40 seats. In the state houses the Republicans are going to take a licking with the Dems picking up 7-8 governorships. More than a few of those gains will be in historically Republican states. 

In contrast the biggest Republican margins will be in very blue Maryland and Massachusetts where the incumbents are extraordinarily popular and I wouldn't rule out a Republican pickup in the very blue and very ill-governed state of Connecticut. The sweetest Democratic pickup will likely be in the very Republican state of Kansas where the anti-immigrant xenophobe Kris Kobach will go down to defeat.

The Senate will be a different story. The Dems face a horrible map and in that body the Republicans figure to pick up one or two seats. There are too many Senate elections in the margin of error so the range of outcomes here is quite large.

As they say in poker, "read em and weep."

My Amazon Review of Alan Greenspan's and Adrian Wooldridge's "Capitalism in America: A History"

The Building of America

Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Economist editor Adrian Wooldridge have written a long needed upbeat history of capitalism in America. It is a history of creative destruction that glorifies the spirit of enterprise that built our country from 13 struggling colonies to a continent spanning behemoth. The authors glorify the exploits of Thomas Edison, John Deere, Bill Gates, Samuel Morse and Henry Ford.

Of course all of this did not happen in a vacuum. America is blessed with a temperate climate, fertile soil, navigable waterways and enormous mineral deposits. Perhaps more important our nation was born when enlightenment values were beginning to flower. As a result we ended up with a constitution that limited government and protected property rights that allowed enterprise to flourish.

The villains of the piece are trade unions and a political/intellectual elite who would rather substitute their judgement for that of the markets. Although the authors do discuss the origins of the 2008 financial crisis, they underestimate the role of financial markets in undermining the very economy Greenspan and Wooldridge are extolling. Hence the need for a modicum of regulation. Moreover the authors ignore the political corruption that ran rampant during the Gilded Age, the 1920s and our era of today.

Although the authors through many barbs at government, in reality they are Hamiltonian conservatives in that they favor broad based policies to support the economy. Those included support for the railroads, the Homestead Act, and land grant colleges all of which played a role in the great explosion of growth in the post-Civil War era.

The authors end their book on sour note fearing that the growing burden of regulation and entitlement costs will sap the dynamism of the economy going forward. I believe that is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient to restore capitalism’s dynamism. What is needed are huge investments in basic research, education and infrastructure and that means more, not less government.

I would note that this book is nowhere near as detailed as Robert Gordon’s “The Rise and Fall of American Growth,” but it is shorter and an easier read and it is an antidote to the anti-capitalist screed of Richard White’s “The Republic for which it Stands"

The full Amazon review appears at: https://www.amazon.com/review/RPCTI0AOP2XWV/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv