Cromwell

If you assume that Trump can’t find a magic escalation formula that will solve his Iran problems at an acceptable price, he will be caught in a classic dilemma. On the one hand, he doesn’t want to make an Obama deal, because that would make him a loser. On the other hand, if the war continues much longer, he will take a beating in the midterms, with everything that portends for his future. Which is worse–Scylla or Charybdis?

If he asked me for advice, which he won’t, I would tell him to rely on his incomparable ability to lie. Make the Obama deal and pretend it’s something better. Sure, lots of people won’t buy into it, but the base will, and that’s what matters.

1. If Donald Trump orders you, as the AG, to open an investigation of a prominent Democratic politician, and you know there is no reasonable basis for the investigation, will you follow his order?
2. If Trump orders you to violate protocol and disclose the existence of the investigation to the media for blatantly political reasons, will you do it?
3. If you investigate someone on his order and find there is no basis for filing charges, but Trump tells you to do it anyway, will you comply with his order?

This is where the rubber hits the road on the issues of prosecutorial ethics and DOJ independence. I would love to hear his answers, even though I might not believe them.

I saw an ad for Byron Donalds while watching a Rays game yesterday. The gist of the ad is that “Washington” is overreaching by trying to preempt state regulation of AI, and that Byron is fighting fearlessly for our right to keep the bad guys under control.

The ad somehow manages to ignore two facts: “Washington” is actually Donald Trump, Donalds’ principal patron; and data center developers and tech companies are pouring money by the boatload into his campaign. It wouldn’t surprise me if they paid for the commercial. It’s a tactic they have used in other states.

I follow several teams on MLB Extra Innings, so I have the privilege of watching political commercials from a variety of states–some of them swing states. What I have noticed thus far is that, while the election has to be a referendum on Trump, the commercials aren’t playing that way. I haven’t seen a single ad talking about immigration, threats to liberal democracy, or the war.

Why is this? Maybe the candidates are just holding back for now. Maybe they think the issues are so obvious they don’t require further discussion. Maybe the Democrats don’t want to annoy Trump voters, and the Republicans aren’t proud of their record. I’m not really sure. We’ll see.

Data center ads are starting to pop up, however. More on one of those in my next post.

In that same interview, Colby insists that the war with Iran is not a stalemate, partly because time is on our side, and partly because Trump has lots of options to escalate if necessary. As to the latter point, I would simply ask: (a) what are those options? and (b) if they exist, why haven’t we already used them?

In reality, you know the options–nukes, conventional terror bombing, and a ground invasion. Colby makes it clear that the last of these is not on the table. That leaves the other two, even if he doesn’t admit it.

In a Ross Douthat interview in today’s NYT, Elbridge Colby takes a victory lap for increased European defense spending, which is probably justified. When asked questions about Trump’s bullying tactics and predatory behavior, however, Colby essentially says that the Europeans and Canadians have nowhere else to go, so even if their citizens don’t appreciate the bullying, they will have to fall into line. Is he right?

No, for two reasons. First of all, public opinion in Europe and Canada does, in fact, matter; their voters ultimately direct policy, unlike residents of Xi’s China and Putin’s Russia. That Colby thinks it is irrelevant tells you a great deal about the mindset of the current administration. Second, the case against Canada and the EU becoming more independent or even throwing their support to China is based largely on the authoritarian nature of the Chinese regime. If interests always prevail over values in foreign affairs, why wouldn’t the Canadians and Europeans prefer a faraway, benevolent lord to one that constantly threatens to take their territory?

According to an article in The Atlantic, a 2024 poll showed Biden with a 49-point lead over Trump among people who read newspapers. What does that mean?

When Trump says he loves the poorly educated, he has reason to mean it.

Ross Douthat responds to attacks on populists by arguing they didn’t support the Iran war. Is he right?

Iran is not Iraq; there was no foreign policy elite consensus in favor of the war. Responsibility for it rests with one man, Donald Trump, who owes his position primarily to a base full of populists. As a result, if you have to attach blame to one side or the other instead of a single dude, it belongs to the populists, even though a few of them don’t support the war.

Life in the time of Trump.

His Iran war drags on.

An easy win, the great man thought

But all such hopes are gone.

We command the air and sea

But they control the Strait.

Which side will surrender first?

For now, it’s a stalemate.

Article III of the Constitution doesn’t really say much about the Supreme Court. It tells us that its members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate; it lays out some jurisdictional parameters; and it sets a “good behavior” standard for removal of justices. That’s it. Everything else is negotiable.

Donald Trump’s legacy is largely a matter of luck; he was able to make three appointments to the Court in his first term as a result of timely retirements and the death of RBG. Obama had fewer appointments than that in two terms in office. By any reasonable standard, that was an unjust result.

Packing the Court is legally possible, but practically inappropriate, as it would invite retaliation and eliminate whatever residual respect the Court continues to enjoy. The best option would be to subject justices to term limits, but that would require a constitutional amendment, which isn’t going to happen. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to enact legislation that guarantees each president one appointment per term. The number of justices would consequently fluctuate with deaths and retirements. So what?

Trump has been demanding defense budget increases from our allies for years. You would think, then, that he would welcome efforts on the part of the Europeans to create their own defense industries. But no! Elbridge Colby is telling them not to duplicate American manufacturing capabilities. What does this mean?

It means, as I’ve said many times before, that Trump doesn’t really want Europe to pay more and police its own continent, regardless of what he says in public. He wants it to be an American vassal state–to acknowledge him as the boss and pay America for its protection. The defense budget issue is just a smokescreen.

Gerrymandering is as old as our country; after all, Elbridge Gerry signed the Declaration of Independence. Gerry didn’t have computers and algorithms to help him, however, and the Supreme Court didn’t give its blessing to gerrymandering until the Trump years. As a practical matter, millions of Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, now have little voice in choosing their House member and no hope of any change in the future. Is it possible to remedy that situation at the federal level?

Maybe. The Constitution says nothing specific about who creates House district boundaries and how it is to be done; it simply gives the states the power to choose the time, place, and “manner” of House elections. The extent to which the reference to “manner” includes drawing boundaries is vague at best. In addition, the federal government is given some residual powers to shape election rules. Could all of this ambiguity give the federal government some ability to limit or even prohibit gerrymandering?

House district boundaries are probably always going to be established at the state level. I don’t see anything in the Constitution, however, that would prohibit the federal government from enacting legislation requiring the states to create bipartisan commissions to draw boundaries that are neutral on a partisan basis after each census and prohibiting the creation of new maps at other times. It should be tried after 2028.

Imagine that you are an Iranian official involved in the negotiations with the US. You know your country has already demonstrated the will and the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. That will not change whether you make a deal to keep the Strait open or not. You also know that the Americans do not have a way to enforce an agreement keeping the Strait open at any reasonable cost. Finally, you may readily assume that the entire world will do its best to find alternative routes for goods if the war continues and the Strait remains closed, which will damage your best source of leverage in the long run.

Under those circumstances, wouldn’t it make perfect sense to concede the point in exchange for something of value instead of continuing to endure American bombing and economic pressure? It certainly does to me.

Why are there so many remarkably awful members of Congress, particularly on the GOP side? Part of the answer has to be that Congress is no longer an equal partner in government. If the legislature no longer plays much of a role in making policy, and does not legislate, then what is the point in being a hard-working team player? Real power lies in the manipulation of social media and the gathering of attention, not the production of useful legislation.

Killing the filibuster would change these incentives. If the voters had reason to judge the effectiveness of a legislator based on his actual production instead of the violence of his rhetoric, we might get a better class of legislator.

There is a consensus among serious historians that the Founding Fathers wanted and expected Congress to be the most important of the three branches of the federal government. There was a time during the 19th century when that was, in fact, the case, but not now. The only important function of Congress today is to keep the lights on and, occasionally, to cut taxes; real power is wielded by the executive branch and, increasingly, by the Supreme Court. How can this be changed?

The filibuster is not mandated by the Constitution, so eliminating it is low-hanging fruit. In addition, the Supreme Court has made it impossible to push through significant reforms by administrative action; the Gorsuch model of government, which now has the force of law, requires an active and responsive Congress that legislates constantly and in greater detail to address emerging problems. As a result, the filibuster has to go.

Eliminating the filibuster comes with significant risks. America might well be much closer to a fascist state today if the GOP majorities in Congress had been set free. Nevertheless, it has to be done, because power abhors a vacuum, and the consequences of inaction–a completely disillusioned voting public and an imperial executive–are even worse than the potential for legislative overkill.