Cromwell

A reviewer in The Atlantic trashes most books written by politicians and asks specifically whether J.D. even wants anyone to read “Communion.” Can we help him out here?

To the extent that J.D. has a steady job within the administration, it is largely to keep all of the different factions happy. With reactionaries, he does this primarily by making outrageous and offensive statements about Democrats and immigrants on social media. With relative moderates, however, he tries to portray himself as a thoughtful guy who constantly examines his own motives and doesn’t hate anyone. When Vance is interviewed by the NYT, he is trying to reassure people like you and me that he isn’t just an angry reactionary. “Communion” is intended to serve the same purpose.

The problem for J.D., however, is that his mixed messages damage his credibility with everyone. At least Trump doesn’t pretend to be anything he isn’t just for purposes of political expediency.

Ross Douthat built a brand as a pundit on his opposition to the secular liberal establishment. In his last column for the NYT, he continues to maintain that position, although he admits that right-wing populist governments have been inept, corrupt, and capricious, and he loathes left-wing populist culture with a passion. Is he right about the supposed failures of the liberal establishment? What does the record in the 21st century tell us?

George W. Bush built his administration on the deregulation of business, the promotion of Christian values, and activism in the Middle East. He gave us the Great Recession and the Iraq War. Barack Obama saved the country from the ravages of the former, put an end to the latter, and started no more wars, unless you count his very brief aerial campaign against the Libyan regime, for which our European partners were the chief advocates, not him. It is true that the recovery from the Great Recession was longer and slower than one would have liked, due largely to opposition to additional government spending by Republicans, and that the bad guys were largely unpunished, but Obama also managed to get an ambitious health care program through the system that improved the lives of millions and is popular today. Does that sound like a failure to you?

Joe Biden, for his part, was elected mostly as a reaction to Trump’s chaotic response to the pandemic. He succeeded in making the vaccine (financed by Trump in one of his few admirable moves) widely available to the public as quickly as possible, which undoubtedly saved millions of lives, although the value of the vaccine is widely disparaged by the right today. He also engineered a recovery that was much faster and more robust than those of our allies, managed to slow Russian aggression in Ukraine at minimal cost to ourselves, and avoided participating in new foreign wars. His failures revolved around his refusal to restrain Israel in Gaza and some unnecessary spending that made inflation, most of which was caused by supply chain problems, slightly worse than it needed to be. On balance, is that a terrible record?

If you think the answer is yes, here’s a thought experiment: what do you think would happen if we had a new pandemic with Trump and RFK in charge of public health? Right-wing populists despise vaccines, which are inevitably created by liberal elites, so there wouldn’t be one. Would Jesus and cures hawked by quacks on the internet save the day?

I think not.

Trump’s other regime change project isn’t going so well, either. He thought imposing misery on the Cubans would result in a revolution, but that hasn’t happened, for the reasons I listed in previous posts; if you are on your last legs, you will use your last ounce of energy on survival, not an attempt to change the government.

So where is this going? For the foreseeable future, nowhere, because both sides think time is on their side. Trump still believes the pain he is causing will ultimately result in regime change, while the Cuban leadership thinks that Trump will eventually lose interest as long as they offer tepid concessions and don’t do anything to provoke him.

Sir Geoffrey Howe had had enough. Margaret Thatcher had treated him with contempt for years and had finally fired him. When he subsequently let loose about her, he was called “The Sheep that Roared.” It was the beginning of the end for the Thatcher government.

Bill Cassidy gave Trump his manhood and received nothing in return. Trump endorsed his primary opponent, who won handily. Cassidy consequently had nothing to lose by doing the right thing and opposing Todd Blanche. Today, he announced that he would cast the deciding vote for a man who has contributed mightily to the wrecking of the DOJ.

Are you surprised? I’m not. I predicted that Susan Collins would vote no, but that Blanche would be confirmed anyway.

In the early years of this blog, I opined that the fundamental split in the blue team revolved around means, not ends; in other words, the left wanted dramatic increases in the size of the welfare state, while the center thought they were not politically or economically possible. I labeled these groups “realos” and “fundis,” the terms used to describe groupings within the German Green Party. Does that analysis hold up today?

It does. The DSA, notwithstanding its name, is really a faction of Social Democrats that is more interested in expanding the welfare state than in nationalizing the means of production. More centrist Democrats have no theoretical objection to this goal but doubt the American electorate will tolerate the large tax increases that would be required to finance it. The obvious example is “Medicare for All;” the left wants it now, while the center, based on the numbers and our experience with Obamacare, thinks it is unattainable for the foreseeable future, whatever its merits.

The division between the two groupings is fairly easy to overcome; the center doesn’t have any fundamental objection to voting for someone who tells them to follow their dreams instead of their fears, and the left will vote for half a loaf rather than nothing. The real practical question is whether the left alienates enough swing voters to lose elections. We’ll get a partial answer to that when we see who wins Michigan in November.

Who would be the ideal nominee? Here are my criteria:

1. It would be a man. I don’t agree that a woman can’t win, but running a woman hurts on the margins.
2. He would have no ties to the Biden administration, so he can’t be associated with Biden’s perceived failures.
3. He is a successful governor.
4. He is young, articulate, and charismatic.
5. He knows how to communicate with social media.
6. He isn’t afraid to take moderate, well-reasoned positions on culture war issues.
7. He doesn’t describe himself as a socialist.
8. He opposes Trump vigorously, but without veering to the left on issues which create vulnerability for Democrats. In other words, he doesn’t think rejecting Trumpism naturally requires defunding the police or throwing open the borders.
9. He understands that the McConnell version of the Constitution doesn’t work and must be changed. I have laid out the kinds of reforms that are possible in previous posts.
10. He will actually promote a balanced form of liberal democracy that moves power away from the executive and the Supreme Court to Congress even if it means limiting his own options for change.

We won’t get this paragon. Let’s hope we get someone close to it.

Michigan is a blue state. As of today, it has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. Its automobile industry has been hit hard by Trump’s capriciousness. It has extensive economic ties with Canada that have been jeopardized by the current administration. Inflation is up; real wages are down; and the war is a disaster. Throw in a young, charismatic, media-savvy candidate for the Senate, and you have a walkover–right?

Not exactly, given that candidate’s hard left-wing views on a wide range of issues. Michelle Goldberg is right; this is a litmus test for the left. If El-Sayed does not win this election, given all of the advantages he starts with, it will send a message that the Democrats have to nominate a centrist in 2028 unless the state of the country is so dire that they cannot possibly lose.

I have previously noted that Roy Cooper and Sherrod Brown are saying nothing about Trump in their commercials. Are there Senate races in which Trump is the featured actor?

Yes. In Maine, a blue state, the key issue is the degree to which Susan Collins is genuinely independent of Trump. She has some facts on her side, but she will have to defend plenty of her other votes. Does Maine want someone who believes Trump is right on most of the issues, but not some of the big ones, or someone who opposes him at every turn? We will find out in November.

In the Michigan Senate race, the GOP candidate, Mike Rogers, will portray the newly minted Democratic standard bearer as a wokester, an antisemite, and a socialist. There will be a grain of truth in these allegations. El-Sayed will respond by tying Rogers to Trump at every turn. Will animosity towards Trump be enough to overcome culture war liabilities? Since Michigan is a swing state in presidential elections, this race will tell us a great deal about whether a conspicuously left leaning Democrat has a real chance to win in 2028.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Trump midterm blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

Progressives keep on beating me; the party’s got to choose.

It’s time for us to unify, or else we’re going to lose.

___________________

We have to get together to take on the New Right.

Good candidates are needed to carry on the fight.

Americans hate socialists; they haven’t seen the light.

If Trump keeps hold of Congress, we can say goodnight.

_______________

I’ve got the blues.

The out of power blues.

I know the left dislikes me

But I’ve paid my dues.

Republicans are vulnerable;

We could have a blue wave.

We have to make it happen

Or the nation can’t be saved.

Iran is apparently hacking into the municipal water systems of towns in Minnesota and Michigan. Why?

The Iranian leadership apparently doesn’t know the difference between red and blue states. If they really wanted Trump to feel some pain, their targets would be in Texas.

Unlike Trump, MBS has learned from his mistakes. He didn’t encourage Trump to start the war, because he now prefers a stable to a volatile Middle East. Trump followed Bibi’s advice rather than his, however, and the current chaos ensued.

Over the past few months, Trump has bounced like a ping-pong ball between MBS and Bibi. He made a deal to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia but then added an unacceptable condition the next day at the behest of the Israelis. He repeatedly threatens to escalate to appease Bibi but then backs down and promises to negotiate in order to satisfy American public opinion and the Saudis.

Has MBS figured out that, for all of Trump’s admiration of his political style and his aesthetic, the current administration simply cannot be trusted? Probably.

The root cause of the smoke from Canadian wildfires that plagued us last week is climate change. Donald Trump doesn’t accept that, of course; he maintains that climate change is a Chinese hoax. He says he plans to punish the Canadians for imposing their smoke on us in some as yet undetermined way. It is fair to assume it will include tariffs.

Personally, I think Trump’s ambitions are way too limited here. What about the cold fronts from Canada that make our lives miserable in the winter? Don’t they deserve a tariff, too?

According to the NYT, Trump is angry at the oil companies because they haven’t given him enough credit for their record profits. At the same time, he is annoyed that they haven’t reduced prices for consumers.

Makes sense to me. I can’t imagine why the oil companies won’t express their gratitude to Trump for enriching them by starting his stupid war. That would certainly go over well with the public.

Both Governor DeWine and Senator Husted say they have been promised there won’t be a massive immigration raid in Springfield. That answers one of the questions I raised in a previous post.

For now, at least. Minneapolis showed Trump that shows of force to demonstrate dominance don’t appeal to swing voters. They do, however, make the base happy, so don’t be surprised if the Springfield Haitians are targeted shortly after the election.

Rubio and Ratcliffe told Trump that Bibi’s plan to force regime change through bombing alone was ridiculous. J.D. never supported the war. Even Hegseth just followed orders. No, the responsibility for the unsuccessful war rests solely on the president’s shoulders, which makes him a loser. Since he can’t tolerate being viewed as a loser, someone will have to pay for his mistakes. Who will it be?

To fire any of his principal advisers would be an admission of failure, so I don’t see that happening. Trump will be concerned that his domestic political opponents–even the lukewarm members of his own party–will get the message from the Iranians that it is possible to stand up to him. He can’t permit that, so you can expect him to become even more capricious and autocratic at home.