Monday, September 10, 2018

Paul Ryan is Running for President in 2020

I've made a lot of bold predictions on this blog. I don't do this because I think I'm a prophet or able to predict the future. I do it because I've trained myself to think like a scientist, and scientists are supposed to make predictions to test their ideas against reality. An incorrect prediction has a way of forcing one to reevaluate a potentially incorrect belief.

So how have my predictions fared? Honestly, I've been looking for failed predictions more so than correct ones, as a scientist ought. Unfortunately, despite the outlandish nature of many of my predictions, there haven't been a lot of clear failures. The big failure was a prediction of war between Egypt and Israel after the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt, but the situation stabilized due to the military retaking power in Egypt from the Brotherhood. If the Brotherhood had remained in power, would there have been a war? We will never know. I used this failure to add a condition to my other big prediction, that Russia and the United States would go to war within the term of the next president as long as Putin remained in power. I would argue this prediction has been technically accurate, though I would be hard pressed to make the case that one incident constitutes a war. The incident we know about escalated in exactly the way I expected. Two opposing, mobilized and deployed forces, one highly aggressive and the other lacking a clear strategic direction from the top, engaged in a pitched battle. Russian mercenaries were clearly attempting to take control over an oil refinery, and U.S. forces wiped out two full companies of Russian infantry. This may have been some kind of mistake or miscommunication, but it might also have been Putin testing the U.S. rules of engagement or even a direct attack. We don't know exactly what happened, but it fits the definition of conventional war I have previously laid out because the Russians were attempting to take control of territory that was protected and held by the U.S.. That said, no one, including myself, would argue that the U.S. and Russia are in fact at war. One incident does not a war make. Have there been other incidents we don't know about that would strengthen the case that we are in a state of de facto, undeclared war with Russia in Syria? The verdict is still out on that one.

However, I've been surprisingly accurate with my other predictions. I predicted global warming wasn't really going to be a thing anymore except on the far left. I predicted the failure of the Arab Spring and afterwards the rise of an incredibly violent and malevolent power as a result which turned out to be ISIS. At the outset of the Crimean incident I predicted Russia would gain the Crimea and up to half of Ukraine. They now control Crimea and another small region of Ukraine called the Dunbas and are essentially getting away with it. I predicted the alt-right were incompetent fools with no real power and would be wiped out by virtually anybody who knew what they were doing in politics. Subsequently Steve Bannon was not only fired from Trump's administration but humiliated several times in various races around the country after announcing he would field candidates to challenge every Republican Senator except Cruz. I'm working on a conspiracy theory that the establishment wing of the party intentionally allowed Roy Moore to win the Alabama Senate primary in hopes he, and Bannon with him, would be humiliated in the general. Now the alt-right isn't really a thing anymore, at least politically. Before that, I predicted that Obama's election was a "momentary backlash by a political movement in the throes of death". Recall that back then all the smart money was on Hillary Clinton to be the next President. I would also argue that I predicted in that column and a few others that the Republican party establishment, much like the alt-right, did not have the power they think they had and would lose control of the party. That has essentially happened, although to be fair I would have said then that movement conservatives would take over the party. *sigh*  If only.

One of the first predictions I made on this blog was that Paul Ryan, or at least his message, had a future and Mitt Romney's establishment style, consultant-driven message targeting various demographics did not. Romney lost that election, although he will likely coast into the Senate in Utah here soon. Meanwhile Paul Ryan was basically dragged kicking and screaming into his current Speaker of the House position. Then Donald Trump happened, whom Ryan refused to endorse. Ryan has passed his career defining law, the corporate tax cut. Now the economic benefits of that are rolling in and Trump, because he's the president, is getting credit for it despite the fact he had nothing to do with it. Mostly Trump can take credit for attempting to start a boneheaded, ineffective but still economically harmful trade war over nothing. Donald Trump is the antithesis of everything Paul Ryan stands for. Ryan has to be deeply incredulous that this kind of challenge to his ideals is coming from within the Republican Party. Ryan is free trade, Trump is anti-trade, more so than anybody I can remember in politics in my lifetime. Ryan is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration. Trump ran on deporting everybody and building a wall. Ryan believes in the power of ideas. Trump has no ideas and mostly believes in the power of his own personality. In the midst of all of this and a pretty large number of Republican retirements, Paul Ryan is leaving the Speakership and the House, citing his family. Ryan must also be deeply disappointed that Republicans likely lose the House in a couple of months in a referendum not on what has actually happened in the House, which is a whole lot of great stuff that died in the Senate due to the filibuster, but because of a man he personally and politically disdains. That's a lot for any man to take, especially one who could have easily walked away with the 2012 nomination but refused to run. 

But, Tragic, you are saying, that doesn't explain why you think Ryan will run. No, no it doesn't. Ryan could very well be doing exactly what he claimed. He could be getting out while he's ahead. He could be going home to watch his kids grow up like he said. As to that, if Ryan was president he could live with his family at the White House. In other words, he has an easy out for when he announces. He also could run as though he had nothing to lose, because if he did lose, all he'd get would be all he's ever wanted, to go home and spend time with his family. But seriously though, that's not evidence. Sure I could go through all of the existential reasons why Ryan might run against Trump. He could be wanting to fight for the soul of the Republican Party he worked so hard to build against a man who represents everything he's always been against, yadda, yadda, yadda. Those are all rationalizations and any one is as good as any other after the fact. But I'm not into all of that. I generally think people make decisions first and rationalize them later. So why then?

A couple of months ago I noticed an intriguing story way below the fold about Ryan firing the House chaplain. This was after Ryan announced he was stepping down and leaving the House. It was one of those little noticed things that I always notice and think is way more important than anybody else does because something doesn't quite make sense about it. Specifically, it's not the kind of thing I would expect from a man who is planning on leaving politics for good. Why would he care who the House chaplain is if he's leaving in less than a year?  At any rate, there was a backlash and the Jesuit priest was reinstated just a few days later.

All these thoughts resurfaced when I watched Paul Ryan's interview with Jonah Goldberg a few months ago. Goldberg mentioned on his podcast later that there was something weird about the interview, like Ryan was intentionally trying to position himself against the alt-right. Perhaps somebody whose name rhymes with Tall Lion was practicing his messaging for a run against Trump in 2020? The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. At several points, Ryan says we have to "re-litigate these issues" and win a public debate over conservative ideology. He even said at one point that were in he "that job", meaning Trump's job, he would make a different argument. He sounds like a man seriously considering a political battle with Trump.

Ryan is not popular with the anti-immigration crowd, for good reason. However, on virtually every other issue, Ryan is a unifying figure on the right. He was made Speaker over his objections because both sides of the Republican Party, the movement conservatives and the business-establishment side, viewed him positively. He would take the entire moderate wing of the party in a race against Trump, and he would attract a large number of movement conservatives who are uneasy with Trump because they know he's not really a conservative, even though many of his policies have been. Ryan would have the support of virtually the entire political class and all parts of the country where ideological conservatives and moderates outnumber the crazy, retarded douchebags. So basically everywhere except the South. He would certainly win a Republican primary in a landslide, barring a 17-candidate circus show like we had in 2016. Since Democrats have nothing except socialism and "Trump sucks!", they'd be pretty vulnerable to a man who came up in politics critiquing socialism and communism and isn't Trump. It's beyond doubt the question of running against Trump has been posed to Ryan in private by serious people, early and often. The only question is whether he wants to or not. Judging by these little looks into Ryan's thinking I just went through, I think Ryan has already decided to run and is actively preparing for it, as are his allies evidenced by the recent anonymous attack on Trump's fitness for the office, which couldn't be better calculated to undermine Trump's position within the Republican Party. Ryan is already running. He just hasn't announced yet, which will likely come after Republicans lose the House in November and blame their loss on Trump.

Paul Ryan will run for President against Trump in 2020 and win. Then he will win the general election and be sworn into office in January, 2021.

Now that's whack.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Three Notes of Self-Interest

So it's been awhile since I posted but I have noticed three things in the news lately, meaning since my last post in February, that are of interest to me as the author of this blog. We'll start with the latest and greatest.

1. Donald Trump has asked Congress to create a sixth branch of the military focused on space called the Space Force. Readers may recall that this was one of planks of the Paddywhack Platform. I've seen a lot of funny stuff lately mocking the proposed "Space Force", but I stand by everything I wrote six years ago in 2012. The primary utility of space is communications through satellites. Virtually all military concerns regarding space revolve around earth-orbiting satellites. Due to the difficult nature of space travel, most of the time these satellites are operated remotely. This means any military operations in space will be heavily dependent on signals intelligence, i.e. hacking and cyberwarfare. The "Space Force" should therefore look a lot less like Star Wars and a lot more like a bunch of skinny bespectacled computer geeks sitting at computers. Given that this "Space Force" will already be focused on cyberwarfare due to the nature of warfare in space, it makes sense to grant the "Space Force" primacy in cyberwarfare, or cyberspace, as well as in space itself. If that's what Trump is after, then I wholeheartedly support it. Cyberwarfare is now more than ever a continuous national security concern with multiple state actors currently taking advantage of the inability of traditional U.S. defense institutions to combat them. It's past time we do something about that, at least six years past time.

2. The Turks have invaded Syria not to attack ISIS, but to attack the Kurds there. I came about as close to predicting this as I could have without actually doing so back in 2015. To quote myself:

"Turkey is far more likely to use military force against the Kurds than against ISIS, but they have been prevented from doing so because the U.S. supports the Kurds."

It is true that Turkey used to restrict themselves when dealing with the Kurds due to the U.S. That has obviously changed, probably because the Russian/Iranian/Allawite axis is the most powerful interest in Syria right now, and Turkey is consequently feeling much less inclined to restrict their behavior because of the U.S. The Russian axis is committed to Assad's government controlling all of Syria. The Kurds are an obstacle to that, and so Turkey is feeling much more confident conducting operations against the Kurds as long as they make it clear they have no long term territorial designs in Syria.

In addition, ISIS is now out of the picture, which has also changed Turkey's calculus. Quoting from myself again:

"Why did Turkey shoot down a Russian plane? Because Russia supports Assad against ISIS, and the Turks like ISIS. They are ideologically, religiously and ethnically aligned with ISIS, but more importantly, ISIS is fighting the Kurds."

No more ISIS? No more Turkish problem with the Russians. Again, as long as Turkey maintains no territorial interests intersecting with Assad, and they never had any in the first place, Turkish interests regarding the Syrian Kurds now align with the Russian axis in the region, and their primary conflict with the Russians has been rendered moot. We should begin to see Turkey aligning themselves closer to the Russians and farther from the U.S. in the future over the Kurdish question and the fact that while the Russians are maintaining a serious, long-term policy backed by hard power, the U.S. seems more interested in what the Kardashians are doing. It's hard to imagine Sunni Turkey finding much common cause with the Shiite Allawites and Iranians, but stranger things have happened especially when they share a common enemy in the region, namely the U.S., who are the only major power supporting the Kurds.

3. George Will recently wrote a couple of columns which sound strangely similar to a number of things I said in response to him and an academic named Henry R. Nau regarding foreign policy. Both of these columns take square aim at President Trump, so clearly there is an ulterior motive guiding his thought process here. But one of my objections to Nau's vision as endorsed by Will is that there are a great many things about the nations of the world which cannot be significantly altered by tweaking U.S. foreign policy. Will makes that very point repeatedly and at length in these two columns. If sowing doubt about the power of U.S. foreign policy among public intellectuals like George Will is all Donald Trump accomplishes with his presidency, it will be...dare I say worth it?

Now that's whack.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Overboard

There's something odd to me about the nostalgia some older people feel for the NASA space program of the 60s and 70s. It feels kind of like talking to a fan of a sports team you don't follow. Everybody knows sports are just for fun, yet some of us, myself included, seem to take it very seriously even so. Ted Cruz is one of the most conservative politicians in existence. Got a problem? The government need not apply. Yet NASA appears to have a special hold on his heart. Then there's David French, a man who viciously opposed Donald Trump and seriously explored an independent run for President after Trump won the primary, yet here he is parroting, if not Trump's slogan (titles for articles like this are often written by editors not authors), then at least Trump's grandiose nationalistic sentiments over the rocket launch the other day. Though Falcon Heavy is a SpaceX rocket, it's heavily subsidized as French notes. I wonder if he would feel the same way or wax so philosophical if it was another country.

One of my very favorite C.S. Lewis quotes happens to be about the space race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Lewis was a British patriot and had no irrational sentiments to color his opinion on the matter, though he most certainly would have understood and heartily approved of such sentiments insofar as they applied to Britain. But without a dog in the fight, Lewis I think pinpointed the real reason why space travel has not worked out the way all the old classic science fiction authors intended. Lewis himself wrote a science fiction trilogy, creating luscious alien biomes on both Mars and Venus complete with several sentient species, an idea becoming increasingly absurd today. Lewis died in 1963, in fact on the same day as did JFK who started the space program, and six years before the first moon landing. An actual landing on Mars, manned or not, was still a fantastic proposition. Yet somehow Lewis manages, as he somehow always did, to be quite prescient on the matter.

In a little known essay called "The Seeing Eye", Lewis deals with the question of space travel, particularly the prospect of finding life, or perhaps as he was told the Soviets said, not finding God. The prospect of intelligent life on other planets vexes a particular sort of Christian, the kind Lewis wasn't. His main concern about finding intelligent life on other planets was the possibility that the fallen human race would corrupt it. The book Perelandra, the second in his space trilogy, imagines the creation of life on Venus by God. After creation, the whole Garden of Eden scenario plays out, but this time God sends a Christian from Earth to counter the influence of Venus' equivalent of the snake in order to prevent the Fall from taking place there as it did on Earth. In Out of the Silent Planet, Earth is the Silent Planet and Mars had watched as Earth had fallen dark and under the influence of the devil. Lewis thought the best sci-fi used a potential future to cast light and lessons on the present. He did not think much of epic colonization stories portraying humanity conquering the stars. He spent several hours a day answering letters from regular people, usually fans of his fiction, and he worried more than anything else that people's faith would be shaken by space exploration, being quite familiar with all the atheist attempts to do so. "The Seeing Eye" was his response to all of that. My favorite quote is perhaps not the most important part, nor is it even in the main argument, but I love it both for its British humor and its prescience:

 "Nor am I much concerned about the 'space race' between America and Russia. The more money, time, skill and zeal they both spend on that rivalry, the less, we may hope they will have to spend on armaments. Great powers might be more usefully, but are seldom less dangerously, employed than in fabricating costly objects and flinging them, as you might say, overboard. Good luck to it! It is an excellent way of letting off steam."

The author of a fantastical tale of alien life and exra-terrestrial adventures understood real space exploration as no more than an international pissing contest. I have always wondered if he would have taken the same line had Britain been a competitor in the space race. Perhaps the naval metaphor is his way of pointing to the period of British dominance in exploration that actually mattered.

French doesn't even argue that space exploration has practical benefits. The whole column is existential nostalgia for a time when, don't you know, Americans were united by a seemingly impossible project. Perhaps we would be more united today if our communal projects had more practical value and were not more examples of redistributing resources in ways that sound really great in speeches by blowhards but don't generate much in the way of wealth and the higher standards of living most people actually care about. French argues in his essay that we lost interest in space because we lost interest in doing things as a nation, but that seems to be missing a rather large point. Could it be that space isn't as hospitable or interesting as all the classic science fiction authors imagined? We came, we saw, we conquered...nothing. And now nobody cares anymore.

Even science fiction is beginning to recognize this. Science fiction has changed from the Star Trek version where "M-class", that is earth-like, planets are myriad, and every one of them seems to have an intelligent species or two. The new Battlestar Galactica would be a case in point. The humans are chased off their home planets by enemy robots and spend the rest of the first season, and much of the rest of the series, desperately trying to find food and water to stay alive and a survivable planet where they can start over. I recently finished the first season of the new hit show "The Expanse" which presents space even more starkly and, it must be said, realistically. Mars is colonized by ordinary humans who went there primarily because they believe Earth had become a lost cause. Now the Martians are engaged in a tedious centuries long project of terraforming the planet to make it livable. A far cry from Lewis' lush vision of Mars. Even more starkly presented are the denizens of the asteroid belt, or "belters". Thanks to our actual experience in space, we now know that even living in zero gravity for months or years has serious deleterious health effects on the human body. "The Expanse" portrays belters as born in low or zero-G and living most of their lives there. They have serious health problems including severe muscular atrophy and skeletal deformations. In one scene, a belter suspected of being a terrorist is tortured by simply suspending him by the armpits on a set of hooks on Earth, the mere exposure to Earth's gravity causing him extensive pain. He later commits suicide by intentionally removing his protection from g-forces during a rocket launch. But hey, let's go to space on purpose because...it's a great way to get Americans to unite around a ridiculous mission?

It certainly seems to be true that Americans are less united now than we were during the space race. I suspect having a common enemy which posed a genuine threat may have had a bit more to do with the national psychology of that time than a communal science project. Nor do I think today's disunity is caused by or can be repaired by something like that. We've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and saw there was nothing to see.

Now that's whack.