Cromwell

Most of the chatter about the failures of liberal democracy revolve around the economic problems–mostly slow growth and increased inequality–of the past few decades. I have previously dismissed GDP growth as the essence of our system, but let’s take the criticism seriously. Does it hold water?

The obvious question is, compared to what? Hitler’s military Keynesianism, which ultimately resulted in World War II? Spain’s stagnation under Franco? The USSR? Give me a break.

The only possible response is today’s China, which involved the application of tactics used by Japan and South Korea to a nation with a much larger market. Economic growth in China has slowed significantly and is increasingly being used to benefit the state rather than the population. If that’s all you have to support authoritarianism over liberal democracy, you had better think again.

The Trump war is back on–sort of. It began as an attempt at regime change, morphed into a battle to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and now is all about the Strait of Hormuz. That fact, in and of itself, is a defeat for Trump, since the Strait was open before his war.

The great man, as always, needs more leverage to impose his will on the Iranians. Where can he find it? Reducing government revenues through the blockade and destroying Iran’s conventional forces didn’t work. It isn’t realistically possible to eliminate the threat to shipping in the Strait by bombing speedboats and drone factories. That leaves bombing civilian infrastructure, a large-scale ground invasion, or using nukes as potentially viable options.

More likely, Trump will ultimately give in for domestic political reasons, and the Iranians will control the Strait for the foreseeable future.

Florida’s Attorney General, an intense, flamboyant reactionary and DeSantis supporter, has filed a federal action against Open AI involving, as I understand it, guardrails for children. Trump, of course, dislikes the idea of state AI regulation, even by red states. The case has been assigned to–wait for it–Judge Cannon, Trump’s judicial best friend.

In other words, this is a proxy battle of prominent reactionaries that will be decided by a reactionary who has already established her subservience to Trump. Buy your popcorn before it runs out.

What is liberal democracy? It is characterized by a belief in the wisdom of the crowd, optimism that the truth will prevail in the long run if the playing field is reasonably level, tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and the understanding that, no matter how wise you are, you may be wrong. It attempts to balance the power of the majority with individual rights; it believes that government should be limited, and arbitrary treatment of anyone prohibited; and it rejects any attempt to impose ideology on anyone’s conscience. It is largely coterminous with the Bill of Rights.

Liberal democracy is not an attempt to dictate the size of the state; it is compatible with both large and small welfare states. While it has been, on the whole, good for economic growth, it revolves around individual rights and happiness, not GDP.

Is liberal democracy failing in the US? Not if you ask its greatest American enemy, Donald Trump. While some members of the New Right explicitly oppose both liberalism and democracy, Trump insists that his political opponents used illiberal tactics against him and his followers and argues that he is just restoring the necessary balance to the system. That’s complete BS, of course, but it shows that he lacks the imagination and the nerve to advocate for a different system, unlike some of his more intellectual supporters.

The J.D. of “Hillbilly Elegy” fame was a CL, not a Reactionary. He didn’t support Trump, and he didn’t call for tariffs or limits on illegal immigration. He put the blame for the struggling workers in Ohio and Kentucky on the personal failings of the workers themselves and on the government for its ham-handed interventions in their lives. Less government and more personal responsibility were the solutions to the regional problems.

The J.D. of 2024 promoted WASP culture and “legacy Americans.” He distinguished between the descendants of people who were here during the Civil War, who are real Americans, and the rest of us, who should just shut up and let the first group run the country. This America is based on soil, not adherence to creeds.

The J.D. of “Communion” is a conservative Catholic who thinks that Americans should have more kids than they can afford. This is, of course, a creed–just not one based on adherence to the Declaration and the Constitution.

From a political perspective, the evolution of J.D. creates two serious problems. First, the positions I have just described do not command the support of a majority of Republicans, let alone general election voters; and second, they are mutually exclusive. If J.D. faces serious opposition during the 2028 primaries, you can rest assured that these potential weaknesses will be exposed and exploited to the hilt.

How will J.D. respond? By relying on Trump–the power that dissolves all logical contradictions–to persuade the electorate to ignore it.

The conservative Catholic J.D.

Thinks that service to God makes us free.

The American way

Is declining today.

It’s the immigrants’ fault, don’t you see?

Like other American presidents before him, Trump has always demanded that Europe bear more of the burden of defending itself. What Trump really wants, however, is to be Europe’s boss, and to compel payment to America for protection. If the Europeans actually do as he asks and become self-sufficient, they will have no reason to suck up to him on tariffs or digital services or Greenland or anything else.

He will, in effect, be forcing Europe to be great again, to America’s cost, at least in his eyes.

J.D. used to tell us that Americans fought for their homeland, not for a creed. Now he thinks that American exceptionalism traditionally revolved around conservative Christianity, which is under threat from secular elites. Furthermore, he believes that our Christian character is threatened by immigrants. Does any of that make sense?

No. Christianity doesn’t make us exceptional; to the extent that America is, and has ever been, a Christian nation, that character ties us to vast numbers of people outside our boundaries, including nations for whom Trump has nothing but disdain. In addition, a large proportion of the illegal immigrants entering our country through Mexico are Christians. The logical way to refresh our supposed character would be to let them in.

Christianity has waxed and waned throughout American history. It was waning at the time of the Revolution and the writing of the Constitution. Nothing in the Declaration or the Constitution suggests that Christianity is at the heart of the American creed. Vance is really closer, at this stage of his life, to a 19th century French royalist than to Washington and Jefferson.

Virtually every neutral expert agreed–Balogun did not deserve the red card. Most domestic football league authorities have the power to rescind unjust red cards, and most of them use it. There was no such standard practice with FIFA, however. Then Trump intervened, and the Europeans erupted.

Probably a large majority of Europeans don’t spend much time worrying about the defense budget or tariffs or digital services taxes. They do, however, care about football. Trump has consequently made himself even more unpopular in Europe than he was before, even with the far right parties.

Oh, and here’s the ultimate irony–Balogun was apparently born in Brooklyn to parents of Nigerian descent who lived in the UK and returned there shortly after the birth. In other words, MAGA would say that his parents were birth tourists and that he has no legitimate claims to American citizenship.

The Economist has become increasingly worried that the AI backlash could kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It recommends redistributing some of the wealth created by AI to the public and legislating quickly and firmly against any emerging abuses in order to fend off political problems. Can that work?

Only if you believe that a federal government dominated by Republicans who have always opposed expansions of the welfare state and increased business regulation can be trusted to compensate the victims of the new technology. Did anything that happened over the last few decades, particularly in response to globalization and the creation of the internet, suggest that is a reasonable possibility?

Of course not.

I remember the Bicentennial; it was the year I graduated from high school. Gerald Ford was the president. The nation was reeling from the aftershocks of Watergate and the fall of South Vietnam. Inflation was roaring out of control. We needed something to pick us up.

For the most part, the Bicentennial was a success. I recall some objections regarding the opportunistic commercialization of the event, but I don’t remember any partisan rancor or arguments about what is now called wokeness. I remember watching “1776” on TV. And, of course, I remember the tall ships. They were a huge success.

Ford, as an unelected president, was in no position to make the Bicentennial about himself; he probably had no desire to do so, anyway. Trump, of course, is totally different. He makes everything about himself and consequently polarizes everything he touches. As a result, he ruined this year’s event for me and for millions of other Americans. There is nothing about the Semiquincentennial that I will remember ten years from now, if I’m still around then.

Oh, and here’s a sobering thought–when you add my life to those of my parents and grandparents, we have been here for slightly more than half of our nation’s existence. We’re still a very young nation, for better and for worse.

At one of the free musical events that make the NC mountains so attractive during the summer, I saw a photographer wearing a t-shirt showing Lincoln playing an electric guitar. I wanted to buy it off his back. Something about it captured the best of America–freedom, soulfulness, great skill, and the endless ability to reinvent yourself.

I was going to post something about how Trump, with his perpetual desire to divide America, had ruined the 250th birthday, but I will leave that for tomorrow. Happy Independence Day!

H: What’s up, Mr. J.? Looks like you’re deep in thought. Are you musing about America’s birthday?

J: Sure am. That was my day in the sun. People still talk about the Declaration and argue about what it means. There’s even a popular musical about it. I can’t help being proud of that.

H: I would have written the Declaration somewhat differently, to emphasize the unique nationality of Americans, but I’ll give you your due as a writer. Did the country turn out the way you planned?

J: Definitely not. In the short run, your party collapsed because my vision of an America of small landowners was more accurate than yours. In the long run, you won. The size of the military, the prominence of huge corporations . . . I didn’t see any of that. America isn’t nearly as virtuous as I would like, but it sure is powerful.

H: Aren’t you ignoring one thing you were right on?

J: What’s that?

H: Trump, of course. He stands for what he calls “real Americans.” He hates immigrants, minorities, and everyone who lives in a city. That sounds just like you.

J: We’ve been through that. Trump doesn’t in any way resemble the yeoman farmers that I imagined would be running the country. He’s a former casino owner from New York who made his living screwing people out of their money. That sounds more like you than me.

H: I was an immigrant. He would have tried to deport me. I also served with distinction in the military, unlike him, and I left America’s finances in good shape. He isn’t doing that, either.

J: What about his war? You always wanted to beef up the armed forces. You wanted an America that was as militarily powerful as England or France.

H: I believed in a rich and powerful America, but I didn’t believe in stupid wars. To give you some credit, you didn’t, either. Back in our day, neutrality was the only sane option.

J: We agree on that much. Will you be celebrating tomorrow?

H: I think we both should celebrate. I doubt either of us believed our creation would last this long and thrive this much. We’re entitled to the credit people still give us, even if the country doesn’t exactly look the way we thought it would.

J: OK then. Happy Independence Day!

William McKinley was not a warmonger. He was a Civil War veteran, so he was familiar with the face of battle. But the pressure to do something became too great after the Maine blew up, and war became inevitable.

The war started as an effort to address Spanish human rights violations in Cuba, a rationale that would have been more familiar in the next century. It ended, however, as an exercise in American imperialism. America would use its naval and financial power to get its way in its backyard for decades to come. Does that sound at all familiar to you?

John Roberts is just a passenger on the culture wars train–it’s more Alito’s thing–but he’s the engineer on issues involving money and power. And what a ride it has been! Sweeping immunity for presidents; the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action; positively embracing gerrymandering; eliminating limits on campaign spending; and putting an end to independent agencies. It all adds up to more power for Republicans, the president, and the Supreme Court, and less for everyone else.

So where does the train go from here? The remaining issues that come to mind are the constitutionality of impoundment and the War Powers Act. If the Democrats win at least one house in the midterms, look for both of these issues to become more prominent in the next two years.