Love's Labor's Lost: Londonistan fuels Brexit

Just days ahead of a pivotal parliamentary election, a new terrorist-inspired stabbing at the London bridge brings to the front page what has been behind the growing momentum for Brexit.

It is clear that for most UK voters the reality of "Londonistan" -as the growingly insulated and non-integrated fundamentalist enclaves are called in London- is one of the key reasons for breaking with the European Union "Schengen" immigration policies.

The unintended -and unattended- effects of what in practice is an "open- and cross- border" policy that allows low-income Muslim and Eastern European cheap labor workers to establish in the UK has been a national uproar for two clear reasons: economic and cultural.

Love's Labor Lost I: it's the economy, again.

Attracted by the availability of welfare state serviced, low-income migrants have overwhelmed the resources of the healthcare and housing systems and crowded-out low income workers who feel betrayed by their traditional Labor union party which they see in cahoots with "anywhere" mobile elites traditionally favoring globalization and gentrification.

Love's Labor Lost II:  the culture clash.

On top of the economic conflict, a sizable part of the UK immigration adds a couple of cultural explosive deal-breakers: anti-Western religious indoctrination and beliefs and islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

The latest stabbings follow a string of attacks that started with the 2005 London bombings but more dramatically spread into the civil society with stabbings and violence in almost all major cities where Muslim fundamentalist immigrants settled for jobs without proper cultural assimilation.  "Londonistan" ghettos grew out of a toxic combination of anti-Western fundamentalist indoctrination and "multi-cultural", "salad-bowl" progressive policies.

The result is in full display: a turn against the EU and for Brexit and a deep and longer-lasting social conflict that will traumatize UK for years to come.

Like in Shakespeare's high comedy,  it's time for getting wisdom out of humiliation and for abandoning ideological posturing.  

The politics of impeachment favor Trump's reelection

The Virginia flip shows how vulnerable could Trump be to a moderate Democratic opponent that appeals to middle Americans, keep taxes low, healthcare private,  and goes for a 2020 election win. But the current 24+ Democratic field shows no one in that category with chances of winning the nomination. 

Each crowded Democratic primary debate is a painful reminder of the McGovern (1972), Mondale (1984), Dukakis (1988) and Kerry (2004) fiascos. All these extreme liberal candidates ended crushed in landslides and in the Electoral College, which reflects more moderate state views. 

Source: Voting America

Lacking competitive candidates or -more importantly- moderate policy proposals, Democrats have turned to two self-defeating tactics: trying to unseat Trump through impeachment and relying on further polarization and anti-Trump feelings.

The first option seems tenuous at best, considering that the Senate is in GOP control and the second complicates the first even more, because anti-Trump-only attacks on the solidly 40 percent-popular Trump increases pro-Trump turnaround even more than anti-Trump voters.

Turning to far Left policies such as "public option" -code words for taking away private healthcare from 167 million American voters-, 54 trillion-dollar tax-hike-funded schemes to "reduce inequality" and embracing identity politics even amongst their own candidates makes general election prospects even more remote for the Democrats.

On top of all this, the economy for the 2020 election clearly favors Trump chances just at a time when the Democratic contenders announce wildly unpopular big tax hikes and unpaid spending schemes.

Virginia shows that swing voters are available, but still scared behind the Impeachment + Trillion Tax Wall far left Democratic candidates and House erected between them and "Anybody-But-Trump" alternatives. 

Add to that wall creepy legacy moderates like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton's third run. And now comes Mike Bloomberg.

Trump welcomes impeachment in its current form as his safest path to get reelected, and even get immunity from some of his obvious legal challenges in a second term.

The other great candidate to beat him -the economy- looks even more reluctant to challenge him than the far Left democrats.

The Wizzard of Oz Presidency? II: A Stable Genius with No Clothes and No Friends

The Trump's presidency is trying hard to make sense of the chaotic twists and turns of its foreign policy.

The unexpected and hurried withdrawal from Syria has been exposed as mostly unplanned, incoherent and self-defeating. Key allies such as Turkey, NATO and the kurds have been left in chaos, set against each other and deeply upset and deeply distrustful of Donald J. Trump and his emasculated Department of State and intelligence officials.

Returns are clearly negative and start mounting to levels that made the most sycophantic loyalists such as Fox News anchors, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and golf buddy Lindsay Graham break files and distance from the self-proclaimed "very stable genius" tweeting policy 180s at odd hours from the White House.

The difference between genius and foolishness has always been hard to judge in politics, but at this point President Trump seems lost in a fog of war of his own making,  a dangerous mix of reality show-like daily spats and consequential, long-term 180 degrees turns and counter-turns. 

Foreign policy is way too complex to trust a single individual -even a very stable genius- bouts of intuition. Particularly when such intuitive impulses come in 30 minute-sequences. 

Trump's language has also deteriorated dangerously from his usual one-liners to bursts of fury and personal aggression towards formidable foes -such as House Speaker Pelosi-, heads of state -such as the President of Italy-, his own appointees -from DOJs to DoDs, to DoEs to Fed Chairs- and critical allies such as the President of Turkey, EU, NATO, Canada, G7 and G20.

Those who want to keep hope and positive expectations towards the atypical president they voted in office have an increasingly hard time. 

Those looking for a method in the madness, a strategy behind stratagems are finding more the latter than the former. And stratagems that might work in closing a one-time, zero-sum real estate deal, a TV contract or handling a poker hand are a poor substitute for strategy.

Those who try to find pragmatism as a positive in Trump's over-simplistic and changing choices instead of poll-driven domestic populism are likely deluding themselves.

Those who asked for a wrecking ball to wipe out US government have certainly gotten what they wished for. Only that the wrecking ball operator seems increasingly erratic and unable to distinguish between his circunstancial political enemies and the columns that support vital institutions.

Trump's leadership style is becoming worryingly similar to that he showed in his reality show "The Apprentice".

Only that this time he's also one of them.

The Art of the Debate

Among the finest arts in which the English-speaking tradition excels perhaps the most revealing is that of the debate. To make my point clear I must ask the reader to watch some video samples that illustrate it along this article.

In the first video above, recorded at the Oxford Union, British MP Daniel Hannan debates defenders of the Occupy Wall Street movement from US and UK. 

Regardless of our opinion on the subject matter -expounded with an unusual clarity by Hannan and his rivals-  three key principles that make the debate worthy stand out:

1. Clear concepts
2. Clear presentation
3. Self-deprecating and reflexive humor

In a good debate done according the English tradition, debaters and public engage actively in exploring, testing and challenging ideas. Debaters might get most of the spotlight, but even those watching a video recorded years before become engaged in a superior mental exercise akin to a fencing match of minds. Even better for those who experience a change of mind as they let the arguments and counter arguments sink in and shed light over different sides of a problem, for that is the ultimate, Socratic intention of the English debate. 

Debaters not only must present their points using clear and compelling examples, analogies and evidence with ease and humor but listen actively to their opponents'. Replies are much more important than assertions. They must be delivered showing respect and empathy for the legitimacy of the rival thought before turning it around or upside down to drive the point in the audience's minds. 

In the second example, taken from Intelligence Squared,   a Catholic Bishop, a Conservative MP, the notorious atheist Christopher Hitchens and gay actor and dramatist Stephen Fry show different ways to argue their extremely opposed views without talking past each other nor losing respect for their opponents.

Finally, the last three pieces from Oxford Union show how radically opposite views can be debated without losing respect for the opponent. 

Three different positions on Occupy Wall Street from 

Cornell West

PM Daniel Hannan

And Anthony Fry

In all the cases, notice how each debater listens carefully to the opposing arguments before addressing them and drives his or her points by turning them around. When that's not possible, the rebuttal fails and the point is conceded.

It takes many centuries to distill a true civil society. And many years of formal education to learn the rules for fruitful disagreement. 

Oxford Union and Intelligence Squared are two of the finest sources to learn more about the art of the debate so sorely missing in our public life today.

Anglosphere vs Eurosphere: the future of EU

The anglosphere has succeeded in bringing together 53 diverse countries much more effectively than the European Union. By respecting their member states "freedom under law" and staying away from Napoleonic central planning, the Anglosphere has been able to achieve the same objectives than the European Union still struggles to accomplish.

I just returned from a trip to a UK where I had time to engage with pro and anti Brexiteers and get a better grasp of what is behind and beyond Brexit.

It is clear to me that beyond the shock of the immigration crisis, terrorism and the loss of blue collar jobs lays a much deeper and ancient cultural gap between Great Britain and the Continent -as they used to call Europe in the old days-.

Well before EU and the process of creating an Eurosphere that started after WWII there was an Anglosphere across the English channel, the Atlantic and in all continents where European and British colonies settled with their mother tongues and culture. 

At a time when Europe and UK contemplate Brexit, is good time to realize about the existence of an "anglosphere" as a non-exclusive alternative to the "European Union" continental project.  It was called Commonwealth and it hsa continually expanded to 53 countries, 26 million square miles and 2,460 million people since its last constitutional update in 1949.

The roots of the Anglosphere go back to 1215, when the Magna Carta established for the first time in human history that rulers should obey their own laws.

"Freedom Under Law" 

remains the core shared principle that serves as a common framework for countries in the Anglosphere.

United by a shared language and colonial past, in which they fought against each other and British rule, English-speaking countries remain and thrive as a de facto global community that has achieved all the goals proposed by the EU in a much more effective way.

The Anglo-speaking nations are the most successful, entrepreneurial, free and innovative nations of the world.  They have risen the standards of living, pushed the boundaries of knowledge and innovation and created the most treasured and successful institutions of freedom.

The Euro zone and the Anglo zone are veering apart, driven by opposite economic, cultural and social models.

• The Euro zone economic model is based on state capitalism, high taxation and regulation, strong and expensive welfare states and shared control over monetary emission. 

• The Anglo zone economic model is based on market capitalism, low taxation (compared to the Euro zone), looser regulation and minimal welfare states with nation governments retaining control over monetary emission.

• The Euro zone cultural model is based on complex, comprehensive Napoleonic-type laws and high levels of labor costs and unionization, with large public employment and government bureaucracies. 

• The Anglo zone cultural model is based on common law (UK has no written Constitution save for the principles), lower levels of labor taxation and unionization, with restrained public employment.

• While in the Euro zone government is viewed as a source of security and social prestige, in the Anglo zone government is viewed as a "necessary evil" and suspicious of red tape, bureaucracy and patronage.

These traits explain why the EU came about as a formal union -with even a formal Constitution and Euro parliament- while the Anglo zone remained a loose "commonwealth" or cultural community and kept strict government independence.

When it comes to trade, the Euro zone is free trade-averse and protectionist -hence the problems with the Irish "backstop" and the default "protective" tariff barriers to non-members- whereas the Anglo zone is more pro free trade and its countries in principle see lower tariffs as a way to stimulate their economies and tariffs in general as barriers to wealth creation.

Brexit in UK and Trump in US have shown a clear preference for one-on-one looser trade agreements. Their condition of members of a cultural and historical Anglosphere  might evolve pretty soon in a regrouping by trade zones across continents and in competition or at least outside the Euro zone framework. 

The Anglo zone countries and economies have been growing at a faster pace than the Euro zone ones and their difference in economic performance and models are pulling them apart.

Brexit and Trump's MAGA are just the first step towards new alliances between US and UK and with the other more dynamic economies of the Anglosphere, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and India.  

The unusual participation of India's PM, Narendra Modi in a Trump rally has sent a strong signal of the acceleration of this process. Thanks to its large English-speaking population and its British and Anglo-like institutions India is better suited to collaborate with US and UK than Communist China.

The Sino-American trade war has provided an opening that both India and US are exploiting to enhance their bargaining positions with China, that remains to a larger extent a less-integrated outsider.

The main reason for this is China's lack or weakness of the equivalent to the Anglo zone key institutions (rules) that Hannan summarizes as three "irreductible elements":

First, the rule of law. The government of the day doesn’t get to set the rules. Those rules exist on a higher plane, and are interpreted by independent magistrates. The law, in other words, is not an instrument of state control, but a mechanism open to any individual seeking redress.

Second, personal liberty: freedom to say what you like, to assemble in any configuration you choose with your fellow citizens, to buy and sell without hindrance, to dispose as you wish of your assets, to work for whom you please, and, conversely, to hire and fire as you will.

Third, representative government. Laws should not be passed, nor taxes levied, except by elected legislators who are answerable to the rest of us. 

We are experiencing a tectonic shift and realignment of the world economy that -in spite of Trump's belligerent rhetoric-  may end strengthening rather than weakening globalization by forcing protectionist and closed economies like EU and China to open their markets and play by the common rules.

As a matter of fact, a recent book on Brexit by Jochen Buchsteiner has recently underscored the existence of two kinds of "Brexiteers": isolationists and nationalists such as Nigel Farage on one hand and those who seek international alliance with other fellow members of the Anglosphere under much more open and free trade-friendly conditions.

Buchsteiner's argument underscores the characteristics of the Anglosphere identified before:

“The Britons have created a strange sociotope for themselves,” Mr Buchsteiner writes, “with a spaceship-like capital city whose international character overshadows all other European metropolises.” Here, “Openness, revolution and tradition are uniquely entangled…In all their urbanity and exceptionalism [Britons] are a strange people.” He suggests that as America turns away from Europe and Asia rises, Brexit might turn out well, though he acknowledges that only time will tell. Mr Roche is less cautious. Brexit, he says, will mean Britain’s rebirth—albeit as a low-tax, low-regulation Trojan horse for American, Chinese and other intercontinental interests at the doors of Europe. “Far from sinking, England [sic] will be renewed. And Elizabeth II will doubtless celebrate her 100th birthday in her revitalised country, confident of itself and prosperous.”

The idea of Brexit as a "Trojan horse" for China and America sounds as exaggerated as the idea of an EU as a "Trojan horse" for the interests of France and Germany. Such distrust and apprehension are the results of centuries of European and World wars between the Euro and the Anglosphere.

It is worth asking whether it would not be more productive to follow rather than opposing those large cultural divisions and seek "soft" versions not only of Brexit but of the EU itself, ditching those elements that are clearly incompatibles, such as trying to combine open borders with welfare states or free trade within with trade barriers without.

Perhaps once Eurocentrists and Anglocentrists have exhausted all other alternatives they might find common ground in common sense.

The Art of the Bluff: Iran loses its hand badly

Bluffing can be a good thing: Iran's overshot fires back, Trump's punt gives US the upper hand 

Moving in a new twist in the bargaining process with Iran, Trump refused for the second time the Iranian bait and gambit by not taking immediate military action.

He also distanced from the Iranian "hawks" by firing John Bolton and distancing from PM Netanyahu. 

In doing so, Trump is trying to find his own path between EU's and Obama's capitulation to Iranian nuclear blackmail and his own hard-right, "neocons" hawks. 

The tactic seems to be working in giving Trump more bargaining power with both sides while keeping his base for the upcoming elections.

Meanwhile, back in Iran the continued sanctions seem to be working by exacerbating internal pressure from the powerful Bazaar on the Iranian dictatorship

while keeping pressure on moderates to come to the bargaining table with concrete and verifiable commitments. By not taking the military option after the drone attacks on Saudi Arabia, Trump has left the Iranians the impopular decision of doubling down with the attacks, which would force the EU to support joint and protective military measures on its own budget.

Trump -who makes no illusions about being popular amongst EU's embattled liberal leaders- is trying to achieve through pressure what Bush 41 achieved by his long-time connections. 

Once again, anti-Trumpism looks disoriented with POTUS 45's moves. They cannot certainly claim that the president is war-mongering like they did with Bush 43 nor criticize him for not attacking Iran -this would force them to align with Israel, something neither EU nor US liberals can do without paying a heavy price with their new electoral base, increasingly formed by anti-Israel, Middle East immigrants.

Trump had his own initiative through his son-in-law Jared stalled a year ago. Although it failed, the plan reflects a more pragmatic approach than the Israeli far right has been proposing.  

Iran: Sanctions are working

After two decades of being pampered with US and EU diplomatic gloves without stopping its Hezbollah and international terrorism sponsorship, Iran seems to be responding to bare knuckle financial sanctions better. Iranians are no longer buying into the "Great Satan" rhetoric that the aging Islamic Republic regime used 50 years ago to shift the blame for its dismal economic performance and systemic corruption. These Iranians are far more westernized and sophisticated  than their parents generation and therefore, harder to bamboozle. 

They haven't experienced a heavy-handed US foreign policy nor the abuses of the Shah. They have instead lived under the corruption and mismanagement of the mullahs and military Guard. 

Under the Islamic Republic regime, the country became increasingly dependent on oil prices. The bonanza of 2000's high prices favored imports, discouraged production and encouraged rampant corruption.  All those problems are now coming back to roost.

They also learned from their 2009 failed upraise to work in tandem between young, college-educated activists 

and the powerful economic forces of the Bazaar.

If Donald Trump gets reelected -as most analysts think- the pressure on the elites of Tehran will become unsustainable. For those who follow the twists and turns of Middle East politics, the question about Iran is no longer "what" will follow the aging regime but "when".

The fall of the Iranian regime will reverberate in all of Middle East and also Latin America, where Hezbollah and oil dollars -the military and economic arms of the regime- still sustain large networks of money laundering, drug trafficking and far-left, anti American regimes and organizations.

For more on this subject, check Michael Rubin's article.

Right-wing Welfare: US Defense Budget

US military budget is clearly both indefensible and unsustainable. 

Click for the full article

After spending almost 4 trillion dollars in a disastrous military engagement in Iraq,

US continues to overspend the rest of the world to act as an international police and army on US taxpayers' pockets.

US defense spending was among the things president Trump sensibly denounced as absurd, signaling an initial impulse to control.

But like most of his predecessors, Trump has just put Defense-subsidized state jobs (and votes) ahead. turning from critic to cheerleader of "two more years" of increased spending

Whether Trump will get Europe and Middle East partners to pay for US military services is still to be seen, but at least he has made clear they have to increase their share of funding military alliances. On this, he has once again flip-flopped dangerously, from critical:

to self-congratulatory conciliation

Both substantial increase on military partners and beneficiaries contributions and results- and foreign strategy-focused spending cuts are necessary.

In absence of a clear international strategy, both spending control and effective military alliances became more unlikely. 

Meanwhile,  the tab keeps running and US politics continue to depend on the perverse incentives of its military-industrial complex -as President Eisenhower warned back in 1961-

Democratic Socialism in Action: Puerto Rico

For those interested in "democratic socialism" Puerto Rico comes handy as the closest US-made example. 

WSJ's columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady summarized Puerto Rico's situation:

"More than two years into bankruptcy, there is still no agreement on the budget and no access to capital markets. On July 3 the oversight board sued the governor in federal court over his decision to allow municipalities to transfer some $330 million in pension and health-insurance costs to the bankrupt commonwealth."

The island got a pass from US Republican and Democratic Congress (a rare coalition between Paul Ryan -remember that fiscal plan?- and Nancy Pelosi) to bypass its Constitution and declare default. 

The banana republic picture completes with across the political spectrum accusations of corruption and mismanagement. 

Puerto Ricans keep voting with their feet, migrating to continental US, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's parents did a generation ago, migrating from Puerto Rico's misery to Bronx's low income class. 

Download pdf report

US capitalism gave ther daughter the chance to go to college where -like many second-generation migrant children- she became fascinated with the eternal promise of "democratic socialism". At just 29 years, the young and talented Alexandria became congresswoman for her adoptive Bronx.

Puerto Rico didn't do so well. Thanks to the kind of policies now promoted by AOC and her progressive "squad" caucus, net migration remained negative

Leaving an overpopulation of pensioners without working-age contributors to the pension system:

Which is exactly what happens when welfare states grow without welfare. Florida will benefit from working-age Puerto Ricans paying into Social Security and pension systems:

The next step of this example of "democratic socialism" will be a haircut for American bond holders.

More on Puerto Rico's bankruptcy and Puerto Rico's PROMESA

Trump's 180 on Iran: Refusing the Iranian bait

For all the post-fact criticism it receive from both sides of the political spectrum, Trump's zig-zagging course of action with Iran might have more than meets the eye. True to their chess tradition, Iranians tried a gambit, provoking US's military reaction.

Looking at the course of events, it is evident that the weaker player, Iran is playing the aggressor instead of US. First, with the attacks to tankers menacing with cutting the strait of Hormuz. Then, doubling down by downing an unmanned drone.

Trump was in both cases forced to react. His first reaction was foreseeable: threatening military action. The second -calling out an air strike- was not.

Most partisan pundits focused on Trump rather than Iran. Let's turn the attention to the aggressor.

Why a weaker country in dire economic straits invites military aggression from a rival with overwhelming superiority? 

What is Iran to win with provoking US to bomb its military installations?

The answer is clear: jacking up  oil price. 

An US attack would rise significantly giving Iran's economy a desperately needed shot in the arm. Trump's first vague threat of military action sent oil price 6 % up in an instant.

Prices could rise up to 100 usd per barrel giving an immediate 50% revenue boost to Iran's exports. Moreover, US efforts in keeping Hormuz strait open would paradoxically benefit Iran. 

Iran is playing the "mouse that roared" tactic. Like in Peter Seller's classic movie, war with US can pay handsomely to the defeated. 

That's why not taking the bait can be a good response, saving not only Iranian lives, but keeping the choke hold on Iran's economy while assessing more strategic military options, such as setting up a NATO/ Gulf nations joint force to protect Hormuz or even destroy Iranian anti-aircraft and anti-ship capabilities.

Both countries seem to play their national games: Iran's chess gambit is met with US's poker's bluff.

Beyond the "Tale of Two Models": Texas and California in the long view

Texas and California are often used as belt-weathers to compare GOP and Democratic policies in practice, as The Economist recently did in a special report.

The "Blue-Red" stereotype of the two states is both historically and demographically misleading, a tired "tale of two countries" used for partisan polarization.

From 1848 up to 1952, Texas voted Democratic.   Texas voted for JFK and Lyndon Johnson during the 1960s and up to 1991 elected a Democratic, pro-choice woman like Ann Richards  as governor. 

Since 1936, California showed a  voting history characterized by strong swings between short Blue dominance (1936-1948) and much longer Red supremacy (1952-1960, 1968-1988) periods, in which it elected Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Republican governors.

Both states are testing grounds for  Republican and Democratic models of economic and social governance and beyond ups and downs, both show long-term success. 

Both states have economic entrepreneurial powerhouses in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley and the Texas Triangle, respectively. 

Both states have shown the ability to learn from mistakes and change course, often guided by the least-expected. Under the once ultra-liberal Jerry Brown, California  straightened its finances, controlled its deficit and turned around its economy.

Partisan views usually describe the contrast in tone-deaf, "B&W", "Hell vs Heaven" terms. Pundits such as libertarian Stossel

and progressive Robert Reich

duel like real estate agents over a candid customer.

Reality is more complex and more interesting.

The Economist report suggests looking at  Texas as a younger version of California, more free enterprise, low-tax like California was at the beginning of the 20th century, now trending towards an expansion of its welfare state network. That trend might be based on two key factors: increased affluence and Californian immigrants.

Voting trends seem to support this hypothesis, showing that Democrats have been making inroads in recent Texan elections.

Conversely, Californians have turned to Republican policies of austerity to stop losing business and jobs to lower taxed neighboring states (Texas first among them) and to shore up their bankrupt pension system.

If something can be learned from Texas and California's swinging politics is that there is no "Red or Blue"  model but rather policies that work, such as Texas' low taxation, business-friendly regulation or California's long-term investment in top universities, research and talent-friendly, internationally-minded ecosystems.

From a long view perspective, demographics will keep changing with success and growth. dictating long term social changes that politicians will follow rather than lead, as they always do. 

Looking at Californians migrating to Texas as a signal of victory for Republican views is most likely wishful thinking. 

Californians -quite like Europeans or Latin Americans- will happily take lower taxes and friendlier regulation without leaving behind their like for the kind of welfare benefits they grew accustomed.  

The electoral trend towards Democrats is a good indicator of it. Partisan Republicans might cheer the Californian exodus at their own peril. For them, it has all the makings of a Pyrrhic victory. The Hill explains why:

"Hundreds of thousands of new residents are moving into Texas every year, choosing to live in fast-growing cities and suburbs around the state’s four largest metropolitan areas. Six of the nation’s 10 fastest-growing counties are in Texas. About one in every 10 Texas residents did not live in the state when Sen. Ted Cruz (R) first won his seat six years ago.

“We have a lot of new voters who have held up their hands. There’s thousands of new voters moving to Texas every week,” said Chris Homan, a veteran Texas Republican strategist.

Those new residents are changing the partisan hue of once-reliably Republican suburbs and fueling a massive surge in new voters in solidly Democratic urban cores that even Republicans acknowledge will put the state’s massive haul of electoral votes in play for the first time in a generation."

Politics are a lagging, not a leading indicator.

Policies are just the opposite.

In any case, the Texas-California rival models are a good lab for testing ideas for the future of the country.