Is There an Imminent Threat of Inflation?

Concerns exist that government spending is reaching unsustainable levels. The Covid lockdowns, which have played havoc with the economy, along with the election to near dominance of the Democrat Party, with its strongly progressive orientation (and wanton fiscal irresponsibility), will lead to spiraling of federal debt, which already exceeds $23 Trillion. The only possible to way to pay for all this spending is by having the Federal Reserve buy Treasury bonds. This is tantamount to "printing" money --- although nowadays the money is not actually printed, but is created electronically. 

Supposedly 35 cents of every dollar spent in 2020 by the federal government was "printed." This has frightened some hard money advocates into predicting high inflation in the coming years. While these expectations are certainly reasonable, this doesn't mean they'll necessarily prove accurate. There is a tendency for critics of easy money policies to over-predict inflation. The Federal Reserve has actually engaged in quite a bit of easy money  (i.e., inflationary) policies over the last three decades without serious (at least in terms appearances) inflation. There are three reasons for this, which I will briefly discuss.

Psychological Causes of "Wokism"

Jordan Peterson, in a recent podcast interview with Paul Rossi, wondered aloud about the causes of “wokeness”: “I keep trying to figure it out, because I’ve been concerned about this for a long time and still can’t get to the bottom of it,” mused Dr. Peterson. “I know there’s a resentment element to it, but I can’t understand exactly what’s driving this, and why it’s … making the headway ... [it is].”

If even Jordan Peterson can’t figure out wokeness, that should be an indication of what a choke-pear this issue really is. Nonetheless, I would suggest that Dr. Peterson has at least the beginnings of an answer well at hand, but has for some unaccountable reason been unable to connect the necessary dots. For hasn’t Dr. Peterson noted on at least several occasions that the best measurable predictor of political ideology (or belief) is personality? And didn’t one of Dr. Peterson’s own students, Christine Andary-Brophy, submit a masters thesis related to this issue? From such sources one can at least form initial conjectures on what might be the underlying motivations behind the horrors of wokism. By adding a few other insights drawn from this place or that, I suspect we can begin to develop an intuitive sense of what these motivations might be—or at the very least draw up the very first outlines for a research program into this difficult issue.

Now I have already introduced most of the following proposed conjectures relating to the causes of “wokeness” in my short book The Psychopathology of the Radical Left. So in this blog post I will be merely restating some of the material introduced in that modest tome.

American Generals and Admirals Issue Their Own Letter

Since my last post about the letter to Macron from French Generals warning of a possible civil war if the ruling elite in France didn’t get their act together, there’s been a second letter, this one from anonymous soldiers serving in the ranks, which backs the Generals’ letter. It’s not known how significant this second letter might be. Does it indicate widespread support in the army for the first letter? Or is it simply a handful of malcontents voicing their discontent? Given, however, that 58% of the French population supports the positions advanced in the first letter, I don’t think we’d be going out on a limb to suggest that at least 58% of the military shares the views and sentiments expressed in that letter as well. 

On the heels of these letters from the French military warning of the dire condition of their country, a letter was published by retired American Generals and Admirals warning about the rise of the radical left in America and questioning Biden’s fitness for office. The American mainstream press, which consists largely of the Ruling Elite's chronic lickspittles, has claimed (among other dubious assertions) that the letter advances conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being “stolen.” This is not a strictly honest (what else is new?). The authors of the letter of course make no such allegations. You’ll find nothing in the missive about Dominion’s voting machines or the alleged large “dumps'' of pro-Biden ballots in the wee hours of the morning. Instead, the letter merely questions the integrity of the election process itself—which is not a conspiracy theory, but simply a call for preventive measures against corruption in the voting process (e.g., voting ID and promptly investigating irregularities, etc.). While there’s no evidence that the 2020 election was “stolen,” there is evidence (or at least allegations) of possible irregularities which were never properly investigated. While these irregularities, assuming they existed, would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the election, if they actually occurred (which is at least possible) they still constitute something of a scandal, and efforts should be made to prevent them from happening in the future. Election irregularities raise the spectre that our election is not entirely fair, which can seriously undermine the whole raison d’etre of Democracy. We have democratic elections not to determine the will of “the people” (there is no such singular “will of the people,” but multiple wills, many of which are in conflict), but to figure out how to come to collective decisions necessary for the preservation of the social order. Democracy is a game we play because the alternative (rule of the strongest) can lead to dangerous levels of tyranny and violence. But the democratic game must be played fairly, with all parties observing the agreed upon rules (i.e., following the Constitution). Winning is less important than following these rules because there are greater issues at stake than always getting one's way. If one side insists on gaining an advantage through cheating, at some point the other side is going to lose interest in playing; and that’s when a threat of a civil war or a coup or a breakdown in civil society becomes very real.  

French Generals' Letter to Macron

A few weeks ago witnessed the publication, in the French periodical Valeurs Actuelles, of a rather extraordinary letter. It was addressed to the members of the French government and signed by 1,000 service personnel of the French military, including 25 retired generals.  Here is the letter in full, as translated by the Irish website TheBurkean:

Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Government,

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Parliament,

This is a serious time, France is in peril, several mortal dangers threaten her. We who, even after retirement, remain soldiers of France cannot in the present circumstances remain indifferent to the fate of our beautiful country.

Our tricolour flags are not just a piece of cloth, they symbolise the tradition of those who, whatever their skin colour or creed, have served France through the ages and given their lives for her. On these flags we find in gold letters the words “Honneur et Patrie“. Now, our honour today lies in denouncing the disintegration that is affecting our country.

A disintegration which, through a certain anti-racism, has only one aim: to create on our soil a malaise and even a hatred between communities. Today, some speak of racialism, nativism and decolonial theories, but through these terms it is the racial war that these hateful and fanatical supporters want. They despise our country, its traditions, its culture, and want to see it dissolve by tearing away its past and its history. Thus they criticise, via the biases of statues, former military and civilian glories, analysing words many centuries old.

A disintegration which, together with Islamism and the hordes of the banlieue, is leading to the detachment of many parts of the nation, to transform them into territories subject to dogmas which are contrary to our constitution. However, for every Frenchman, whatever his belief or non-belief, all of France must be his home; there cannot and must not be any town or district where the laws of the Republic do not apply.

A disintegration because hatred takes precedence over fraternity, as it does in demonstrations where power uses the forces of order as auxiliary agents and scapegoats, against those French in yellow vests who are expressing their despair. Meanwhile hooded individuals infiltrate and ransack businesses, threatening these same forces of order. However, the latter are only applying the directives, which are sometimes contradictory, and are given by you, the rulers.

The dangers are growing, the violence is increasing day by day. Who would have predicted ten years ago that a teacher would one day be decapitated outside his school? We, the servants of the Nation, who have always been ready to put our skin in the game — as our military status demanded — cannot be passive spectators of such actions.

It is therefore imperative that those who lead our country find the courage to eradicate these dangers. To do this, it is often enough to apply without weakness the laws that already exist. Do not forget that, like us, a large majority of our fellow citizens are fed up with your wavering and your guilty silences.

As Cardinal Mercier, Primate of Belgium, said: “When prudence is everywhere, courage is nowhere.” So, ladies and gentlemen, enough procrastination, the hour is serious, the work is colossal; do not waste time and know that we are ready to support those policies which take into consideration the safeguarding of the nation.

On the other hand, if nothing is done, laxity will continue to spread inexorably in society, in the end causing an explosion and the intervention of our active comrades on the national territory, in a perilous mission to protect our civilisational values and safeguard our compatriots.

We see that it is no longer time to procrastinate, otherwise tomorrow this growing chaos will be put to an end by civil war, and the deaths, for which you will be responsible, will be counted in thousands.

Political Systems as "Arrangements"

Many (perhaps most) people view politics through the prism of their personal preferences, which they arbitrarily regard as "true," "right," "good," "beautiful," etc. People with different premises are summarily dismissed as "wrong," "bad," "selfish," "naive," "stupid," "bigoted," etc. The tendency of all such ideologues is to believe that if everyone were smart and decent, they would all hold essentially the same political beliefs, and we would consequently have a government based on the "correct" principles. Such is the world as imagined by individuals with agendas.

The problem with these agenda-based belief systems is that they don't altogether accord with the facts. It's not entirely selfishness or naivete, stupidity or bigotry that cause people to disagree on political subjects. According to social psychology (see Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind), an individual's intrinsic wiring (i.e., their DNA) will, more often than not, predispose them to accepting certain political ideals at the expense of others. This doesn't mean that political convictions are entirely founded on DNA. Obviously, personal experiences, as well one's immediate peer group, can count for a great deal as well, particularly when people are young and impressionable. But hardwiring often counts for more in the long run.

In terms of practical outcome, what this means is that an individual's political convictions are more likely to be formed on the basis his own (perceived) interests and sentiments, and not on the basis of
"the facts" and/or "reason." Political allegiances tend to contain a fairly large non-rational component. And they tend to be rather rigid in the sense that, once formed, it's hard to change them through "rational" persuasion. Simply attempt to convert a "progressive" to "conservatism," or a "conservative" to "progressivism," and you will see how things stand. It's very difficult to get people to change their political ideals. Human beings can be very stubborn in that way.

The conclusion I wish to draw from this is the following: since many people cling to political ideals that are, at least in part, founded on aspects of their personality that is hard-wired, it's naive to believe that, in a democratic social order, any political ideology will become so dominant that it can pretty much do as it pleases, without fear of opposition. Human nature is not homogeneous. Not everyone has the same innate sentiments. Nor do they all have the same interests. For this reason, a democratic society will always be divided by various factions animated by opposing sentiments and interests. There can never be a complete unity on every important challenge or issue facing a nation or its political system. Consequently, a government, particularly in a democracy, is "an arrangement"; that is to say, it is not the consequence of any single person, or ideology, or consensus. It's rather the somewhat random outcome of various factions attempting to pursue their unique interests and satisfy their particular sentiments within the parameters of the political system. The actual government that results from this process rarely accords to anyone's political or ideological ideal.

Putting this another way, there is no such thing as "The People." Ideologues are fond of saying that "The People" want this set of policies or believe in that set of ideals. But this is all nonsense. There is no "The People." Instead, their are many different peoples with different emotions, sentiments, biases, interests all competing within the social order for influence, power, and "social preeminence." Out of this competition (i.e., the political process) emerges both the governing elite and their policies. This process is, of course, rather kludgy. It can't be counted on to create optimal solutions (even when, as now, they are so badly needed). Often the political process leads to policies that all but the most partisan commentators have to admit are blatantly dysfunctional.

For example, consider the national debt of the U.S. It stands at $19 trillion (and that's not counting all the unfunded, perhaps even unfundable mandates that are facing the U.S. in the future). How could the federal government allow the nation to reach such an untenable position? It's not in hardly anyone's interest to have so high a debt. It's not in the interest of most people on the right, because it almost invariably guarantees higher taxes and less money for the military; and it's not in the interest of most people on the left, because it will inevitably put a fiscal squeeze on social programs. Yet there it stands, all 19 trillion of it, and continuing to grow at an alarming rate.

Then we have the whole corporate welfare/crony capitalism cancer that's eating away at the productivity of the nation, to the detriment, mostly, of the middle class. Admittedly, there are people within the political and economic elite who benefit from this sort of thing. But most people outside these elites, regardless of their political ideology, don't benefit from it and, for the most part, are against it. And yet it persists despite any kind of political "will" to change it. Why is that? The huge political advantages which elites enjoy over the non-elites plays a big part in this. But it's also a consequence of the fact that are political system is a mere "arrangement," not a rational application of a given system or ideology.

Terror Attacks in France and the Far Right

The head of France's intelligence agency, Patrick Calvar, in the wake of the Paris attacks last November, warned that his country might be on the verge of factional violence between various groups:

I think we will win against terrorism; I am, however, more concerned about the radicalisation of society and the basic movement that drives it. That’s what worries me when I talk with my European colleagues: we will have, at one time or another, to provide resources to deal with other extremist groups because confrontation is inevitable.

By "radicalization" Calvar means far-right groups. Further large scale acts of terrorism, Calvar fears, could lead to a "confrontation between the far right and the Muslim world – not the Islamists, but the Muslim world." Presumably, Calvar envisions far-right groups conducting random violence against French muslims in "retaliation" for terrorist attacks.

Calvar admits that, with the rise of Islamic terror, surveillance of far right has diminished. So the question arises: are Calvar's suppositions based on solid data, or is he merely making an educated guess?

I ask this question for two reasons. To begin with, whenever you talk about this or that group engaging in violence, you have to ask: are the members of that group, including its leaders, good at violence? Do they have experience committing violent acts (i.e., in the military or criminal gangs)? Because most people, irregardless of stated ideology, don't have any experience committing violent acts and are probably not any good at it. The other issue has to do with whether the group in question is well or ill led (i.e., whether the groups leaders are shrewd or clueless). For the radical right to engage in random acts of violence against miscellaneous Muslims in France, you would need a radical right group that is good at violence led by leaders exercising poor judgment. If the radical right group is poor at violence, they either will not have the courage to go through with the violence or they'll get themselves slaughtered. If the radical right group is well led, they won't engage in random acts of violence against miscellaneous Muslims, because such acts will only engender sympathy for Muslims, most of whom are not involved in terrorism.

The fact is, the radical right has nothing to gain from committing acts of violence against Muslims, yet everything to gain from acts of violence committed by radical Islamists. This is why the best way for the more moderate factions in society to prevent the growing influence of the far right would be to prevent and ultimately defeat radical Islam. The dilemma for the moderates is whether radical Islam can be defeated without using the rather unsavory methods advocated by the far right (i.e., deportation of Muslims).

Clinton Email Scandal

On this blog, I will try something completely different. Instead of advocating a specific political ideology or specific government policies, I will attempt to study political reality objectively and impartially. My focus will not be on what "ought to be" in the political and social world, but the way things actually are or will or might be. We don't live in an "ought" world; rather, we live in an "is" world. And if you want to understand politics, rather than just advocate a specific position, nothing is more requisite than to set one's personal ideological preferences aside. Ideological commitments inevitably thwart independent judgment.

I will at a later date write up some posts covering some of the basic principles of an objective analysis of the political landscape. In this introductory post, however, I will leap straight into the big story of the week, namely, the decision by the FBI not to recommend an indictment against the Democrat's presumptive nominee for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton.

Reactions to FBI Director James Comey's insistence that no charges should be filed against Clinton have been as one would expect: fiery indignation from Clinton's foes on the right; a sense of relief (mixed with anger over Comey's harsh criticisms of Hillary) on the left. But all such reactions are neither here nor there. The question I'm interested in is: who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose as a result of this decision?

I would argue that the Republicans have the most to gain, and the Democrats have the most to lose from the FBI's decision not to press charges against Hillary Clinton. This is not obvious at first glance, because the tendency is to view this in terms of how it affects Hillary Clinton, and not being indited is obviously a huge positive for her; Republicans, on the other hand, are bitterly disappointed that Hillary Clinton has escaped the clutches of law. However, neither side is really looking at the issue coldly, in terms of probable practical consequences. The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is not an especially good Presidential candidate, and if she had been indited, she would likely have been pressured by the Democrat Party to drop out of the race. This would presumably allow the Democrats to advance a better candidate for President --- perhaps someone like Joe Biden, who would almost certainly defeat Trump in a general election. So paradoxically, an indictment of Hillary Clinton might have helped the Democrats by making their victory in November almost certain.

The Republicans gain from this decision because (1) Hillary remains the Democratic candidate for President; and (2) Comey's harsh criticisms of Hillary are really quite damaging (as this AP story demonstrates), crippling her even further and giving Donald Trump's at least a fighting chance at pulling off an electoral upset. Many of Hillary Clinton's key assertions concerning her email practices have been found to lack credibility, which will provide Republicans with many opportunities to demoralize Clinton's base and win over independents.

Despite Clinton's prevarications about her emails, it remains to be seen how much of an affect this scandal, and in particular Comey's harsh criticisms of the former Secretary of State, will have on independents. Because that's really what matters. Clinton's opponents on the right will, of course, regard Clinton's conduct as appalling, and will advance it as evidence that she is not fit to be President. Clinton's supporters, on the other hand, probably don't care, regarding it as much ado about nothing. But for independents, for those voters who don't have a strong preference either way, how will this scandal affect how they vote in November? Will they regard Clinton's "extremely careless" (Comey's words) use of a private email server for State Department business as serious enough to render her unfit for the Presidency? Will they be bothered about her dubious statements she made regarding the server?

I suspect that, while Clinton's email scandal should cost her at least a few votes among independents, it won't cause her major damage. And the reason is quite simple: nearly everyone who's not already an avid supporter of Clinton knows, or at least suspects, that Clinton is corrupt. The Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, have been involved in one scandal or another since they entered national politics nearly 25 years ago. So this latest scandal with the private server in the bathroom hardly comes as a shock.

The biggest reason, however, that Clinton's email scandal won't hurt her all that much in November is Donald Trump, who has his own issues. If the Republicans were running a better candidate, Hillary Clinton might be in real trouble.

There's one other issue here that may be something worth keeping an eye on. Partisans can argue all day whether Clinton's use of a private email server is a serious matter or not, but it still seems, on the face of it, rather careless and not very smart. Why was Clinton use a private server for State Department business? And why, having been caught using it, did she make misleading statements regarding it, and delete 30,000 emails (which she declared were "personal") into the bargain? If, as her supporters have argued, it's not a big deal, why not just fully cooperate with the authorities (don't delete 30,000 emails) and refrain from making misleading statements? And why did Bill Clinton try to meet Attorney General Loretta Lynch in secret? Didn't he know that, if this meeting were discovered, it would not look good? The Clintons managed to turn what might have been a very minor matter into something much worse.