Cromwell

LULA

I met him in a club down in Rio D

Where they drink champagne and it tastes just like Coca-Cola.

C-O-L-A, Cola.

He walked up to me and asked for some cash.

I asked him his name, and in a dark brown voice he said “Lula.”

L-U-L-A, Lula.

Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.

Lula.

____________

Well, I’m still the world’s most powerful guy.

But he wasn’t impressed, and I don’t know why.

Oh, my Lula.

Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.

He’s not dumb, so I don’t understand

Why giving up power wasn’t part of his plan.

Oh, my Lula.

Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.

________________

We drank champagne and danced all night

Under electric candlelight.

Lula told me I’m not his type.

He’s too far left, and I’m too far right.

______________

Well, that’s the way that it’s going to stay

And it’s always going to be that way with Lula.

Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.

Tariffs will come and tariffs will go.

It’s a mixed-up world, a shook-up world

Except for Lula.

Lu-Lu-Lu-Lu-Lula.

Lula.

_________________

Parody of “Lola” by The Kinks

I have previously defined antisemitism as an egregious form of discrimination. If you accept my definition, it would not be antisemitic to support the replacement of the Jewish state with a single secular entity that theoretically and practically provided Jews and Arabs with equal rights. You would have the heavy burden of proving that such an entity could actually exist in the real world, but you would not be an antisemite.

Right-wing Israeli nationalists view the issue differently. For them, the world is already divided into Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu states. To deny Jews the right to a state of their own is consequently a form of discrimination and, therefore, antisemitism.

Whatever you may think of the notion of Muslim states, the fact of the matter is that the United States is not legally a Christian nation, and discrimination against Jews is unlawful throughout Europe and Latin America. The right-wing Israeli line of reasoning is only valid as applied to America if you embrace the ahistorical position of MAGA Christians that they are entitled by God to rule our nation.

If you ever wondered why the right-wing Israelis are closer to American fundamentalist Christians than to American Jews, that is your answer.

Results of Israeli elections are rarely clear-cut. This one is no exception. What stands out this time, however, is the performance of the Arab parties. On its face, they should be the kingmakers when the process of building coalitions begins.

But will that happen? The major parties appear to view the Arab parties as being illegitimate actors with no right to participate in government, regardless of their electoral popularity.

If it turns out that Arab votes don’t really count, then Israel is a DINO–a democracy in name only.

If the Democrats win control of even part of Congress next week, Trump can expect lots of attempts to build guardrails against further abuses of power. There will be investigations, blocks on nominees, litigation over impoundment, and government shutdowns. How will he respond?

He already has a playbook for this situation. He will stonewall the investigators, force them to litigate, and run the clock out in the judicial system. He will rely on acting and interim subordinates instead of nominees. He will do his best to keep any litigation on impoundment from reaching the Supreme Court. Finally, he will blame the Democrats for any inconvenience created by the shutdowns. History tells us these tactics will probably work.

The only exception will be judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court. There are no acting or interim justices, even for him.

On the one hand, the Venezuelan exiles want quick elections, a Machado victory, and the complete destruction of the Chavez/Maduro/Delcy regime. These are Marco Rubio’s people, and he probably agrees with them. On the other hand, Trump has struck deals with Delcy that give him a vested interest in the continued viability of the regime. The conflict here is obvious.

Machado’s return to Venezuela is going to throw gas on the fire. I expect her to start holding rallies and demanding free elections in early 2027. The regime won’t have the nerve to arrest her, so it will play for time. At some point, Machado will lose patience with the delays, and everything will hit the fan.

Will Trump authorize the regime to stamp out the opposition? Will Rubio remain on board if he does? TBD.

Barring the abolition of the filibuster, any legislation coming out of the new Congress will require bipartisan support in the Senate. Is there any prospect for meaningful cooperation in the next two years?

On paper, yes. Here are some of the most likely candidates:

1. PERMITTING REFORM: This is an issue that doesn’t interest the reactionary base much, which helps. The opponents, for the most part, are environmental interests on the left and business interests on the right.
2. AI GUARDRAILS: The desire to regulate AI cuts across party lines. One can imagine an unusual alliance between the reactionary base and the left against business interests that would generate enough votes for passage.
3. TARIFF REFORM: An alliance of GOP free traders, particularly in agricultural states, and the left to eliminate some of Trump’s more obnoxious tariffs could conceivably get 60 votes.
4. IMMIGRATION REFORM: The extremists on both sides have had their way and been punished for it at the polls. Moderates in both parties could work together to fashion a compromise, right?
5. REMOVE THE FICA CAP: Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren have already co-sponsored legislation to do this. If they can agree, why not others?

The problem, of course, is Trump. He might buy off on #1, but not on the rest. Don’t hold your breath on any of these proposals.

This time, the aging leftist beat the thuggish reactionary in the rematch. Trump relates very strongly to the Bolsonaro family, so he will be extremely angry. What can we expect from him?

Two things. First, his complaints on the trail about the left rigging elections will become even more shrill. Second, he will begin a pressure campaign to try to force the Brazilian election officials to identify Bolsonaro as the victor. These will probably include more tariffs and even a threat of military intervention.

A Democratic Senate would be hobbled by the filibuster. Would this be the time to abolish it?

No, because the GOP could conceivably win the trifecta in 2028, at which time the Democrats would no longer have any leverage to protect their ideas and constituents. There is no reasonable prospect that any purely partisan blue team legislation will become law as long as Trump is president. Don’t push against the filibuster until it can do you some practical good.

Let’s be honest–Trump is likely to veto any initiatives from the new blue Congress, so any legislation generated in the next two years will be more of an exercise in line-drawing than in helping the American people. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried. Can the Democrats unite behind an agenda, and what would it look like?

The most obvious way of reducing costs for American voters is to repeal the more extreme Trump tariffs. In addition, the Democrats will agree on reining in ICE. An excess profits tax on fossil fuel industries could theoretically provide funds for reinstating the Biden subsidies for Obamacare policies. Finally, the Democrats should propose to eliminate the FICA cap in order to protect Social Security. If Trump and the GOP want to prioritize low taxes for wealthy people over the fiscal health of Social Security, let them say so in public.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress. Should their agenda include impeachment? If so, of whom?

Trump clearly fears impeachment, but attacking him directly would be a mistake, because: (a) it will play into his martyrdom narrative; (b) it will unite a fractured base behind him; (c) it will make him even more autocratic; (d) it has no chance of success; and (e) if somehow successful, it would make J.D. president. In short, it’s a loser all around.

Impeaching Hegseth would be far more popular and would have some chance of success. There are three potential grounds: failing to protect secrets; general incompetence; and the politicization of the military for purely partisan purposes. Do these have any basis in the real world?

#1 clearly does, and is legally sustainable, but may seem too remote in time and insignificant to justify such a drastic remedy. #2 seems obvious to me, but may not meet the legal standard, and is at any rate subjective and reasonably debatable. #3 is the one that really meets the standard of a “high crime,” and I have opined on many occasions that it is the real reason for Heggy’s supposed war on wokeness. Can it be proved in public? I’m not sure.

This is a cause that would unite the blue base and divide the right. On balance, I think it would be worth attempting.

Leaf season came late to the mountains this year as a result of the unusually hot weather. As a result, most of the leaves are still on the trees. It’s getting cold, however, and winter is on the way. It’s time to return to Florida.

This is the last time we will see DeSantis’ name on the welcome sign when we cross the border. At this time next year, he will either be running for president or heading for a crushing anonymity. I suspect the former, even though he has inspired very little chatter, but let’s hope it’s the latter.

There is an interesting article in today’s NYT about what history tells us regarding the impact of dramatic technological change on workers. Sometimes the transition to a different kind of economy is smooth, and sometimes it isn’t. Key factors include the state of the economy at the time the change occurs, the speed at which the change occurs, and the amount and quality of government intervention to mitigate the damage to newly redundant workers.

That is a reasonable analysis. But it doesn’t answer the question that Bill Gates and I, among others, have asked about AI: the original Industrial Revolution replaced human strength and dexterity with machines, so if AI substitutes software for human intellect, what does the average person have left to sell?

I have yet to see a plausible answer to that question.

Since the war on the ground in Ukraine is not going well, Putin has changed tactics. He has decided to try and win it by flipping Trump and intensifying the bombing of civilians.

Trump, for his part, is contemplating an escalation of the Iran war after the midterms. The new air campaign will apparently largely focus on the destruction of Iran’s energy supplies. The plan, of course, is to force the regime to make concessions by further immiserating the civilian population.

Creating misery hasn’t worked in Cuba, it didn’t work in North Vietnam, it hasn’t worked yet in Iran, and it won’t work next month. It won’t work for Putin, either.

Trump is going to Florida on Friday to campaign for Byron Donalds. When Jolly was asked about this, his reply, in a nutshell, was “Good!”

Trump is trying desperately to win the midterms by making them about himself. Since he is the problem, his efforts are only making things worse for the GOP.

He looks like a man struggling to get out of quicksand.

Things couldn’t get worse, right? Well, actually, they have been worse, and in my lifetime. In 1968, America’s cities were burning, RFK and MLK were assassinated, and the country was torn apart by the war. The country voted for law and order in the presidential election, and the rest is history.

The difference between now and then is that the threat to stability came from people who had been denied the benefits of liberal democracy and were seeking a more inclusionary version of the existing system. Today, the threat comes from reactionaries who don’t believe in liberal democracy, but in their supposed God-given entitlement to political, social, and economic supremacy.