Cromwell

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.

For a man who demands unconditional loyalty while giving none himself, Trump has been remarkably tolerant of J.D.’s very public attempts to distance himself from the war. What’s going on here?

I’m speculating, of course, but I suspect that Trump is trying to send a message to his anti-war MAGA supporters through the back door that he is still one of them at heart. J.D.’s job in his administration, other than to reverse engineer his incoherent utterances into something that makes sense, is to keep the band from flying apart. That’s probably what he’s doing here, too.

It isn’t working, just as his attempts to keep the techno-aristocrats and the populists on the same page can’t succeed in the long run.

America has always been about change. Americans are used to having the newest and best of everything. Why, then, is there so much pessimism about the impacts of AI, which is potentially a new golden goose of productivity and profit?

Part of the answer is demographic change, of course; you can hardly expect a country that is largely run by and for the elderly to embrace revolution in the economy. But that is not the whole story; Gen Z dislikes AI as much as old reactionaries do. Why is that?

Because the events of the last few decades have shown that the federal government is incapable of responding quickly and appropriately to the issues that will be created by AI. Nobody compensated the losers from globalization and technological change after 2000, and Congress is hamstrung by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and its own rules, so why would anyone expect anything better this time around?

Change is needed to head off serious problems in the future. I will outline a number of revisions to the McConnell Project which do not require amendments to the Constitution and which, if enacted, would improve things dramatically in a series of posts over the next week.

The federal debt as a percentage of GDP was approximately 30 percent in 1980. Ronald Reagan argued that a big tax cut, combined with massive increases in defense spending, would not increase the debt, as increased economic growth and the elimination of waste and fraud would fill in the gap. He was wrong; the deficit exploded, and we have been living on borrowed money ever since.

In 2012, Governor Sam Brownback pushed a large tax cut through the Kansas Legislature. He maintained that the cut would pay for itself through economic growth. It didn’t; services were cut dramatically as a result; and the tax cut was repealed by Republicans a few years later.

In 2022, Liz Truss supported an enormous tax cut, which, according to her, would pay for itself. Markets didn’t agree; the value of the pound fell significantly; and Truss was forced to resign.

Today, DeSantis and Ramaswamy are advocating for huge state tax cuts on the basis that the ensuing growth, combined with reductions in waste and fraud, would pay for them. What do you think?

Marx famously said that history repeats itself twice–once as tragedy, and once as farce. He was wrong. With the GOP and tax cuts, the hits just keep on coming.

Trump is apparently threatening Canada with new tariffs for the wildfire smoke even though it is caused primarily by climate change, a phenomenon he rejects as a Chinese hoax. In addition, one of the rationales for his new tariffs on Brazil is the country’s alleged failure to get deforestation under control; Lula has done a far better job of this than Trump’s buddy Bolsonaro, who basically told Brazilians to let it rip.

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Next thing you know, he’ll be offering the Chinese a geopolitical partnership while accusing them of flipping the 2020 election to Biden. Oh, wait . . .

Trump misrepresented facts and documents, ignored his own efforts to weaken our defenses against foreign interference, and made no attempt to create a nexus between the supposed foreign rigging and his precious SAVE Act. In other words, it was a typical performance last night. The base will be happy, but no one will be persuaded.

Even Fox was cautious about his allegations. Paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to settle defamation suits will do that to you.

Roman emperors lacked mass media and the internet, so they relied on their images on coins to get the message across. Fittingly enough for a man who frequently resembles Caligula, Trump appears to be trying the same thing. Will it work for him?

No, because we have mass media and the internet. We also use credit cards more often than cash. It is unlikely that putting Trump’s signature and image on currency will win him much support, although his ego will undoubtedly be gratified.

The better question is, did the Treasury pay him for the use of his image? It would be unlike him not to demand a cut from the transaction.

Effective opposition contains three components. First, you have to take positions on the issues that will get you elected; second, you have to take actions while in office to check Trump’s excesses; and third, you have to mobilize public support for guardrails against the abuse of executive power.

What effective opposition does not consist of is taking positions that are unpopular and unrealistic, going off on personal safaris that divide the Democratic Party, and making loud and controversial statements on social media that alienate potential swing voters. In other words, the Democrats do not need their own version of the Tea Party; they are the party of responsible adults and stable government, not a flock of sheep or a collection of noisy narcissists.

What does Pete Hegseth have in common with Frank Thomas and Doug Flutie? Why, concern about low testosterone, of course! In an apparent attempt to make sure that our soldiers are half-crazed killers, he intends to test their testosterone levels, and to up them where necessary.

In light of our failure to find a solution to the Strait of Hormuz problem, perhaps Hegseth should actually be requiring the use of Prevagen. He could start with himself.

St. Peter is waiting for him with some pointed questions.

P: The boss and I need to clear up some points before we let you in.

G: No problem. I’m proud of my record. I always tried to do good.

P: Then why did you sell your soul to Trump? You seem to have a well-developed moral sense, and that man is evil.

G: I figured that would be your first question.

P: As you should, Captain Obvious.

G: I have three answers for you. First, I don’t agree that Trump is evil. Sure, he’s rough with his mouth, narcissistic, and oblivious to anyone else’s suffering. But he means well. He wants the best for America and the world. I’ve spent lots of time with him, so I should know.

P: We have a different perception up here. He’s a totally self-centered man who does nothing but wreck things in order to prove he’s the boss of everyone and everything.

G: Well, that’s your opinion. The second answer is that I broke from Trump on occasion, particularly after January 6.

P: And then you went right back to him as soon as the coast was clear.

G: Which brings me to my third point–I was playing the insider game in order to influence policy for good. It worked, too!

P: You mean, as in the Iran war? As your friend Sarah Palin would say, how’s that Middle East war thing working for you?

G: We just need to keep bombing. The plan is a good one. It just needs more time.

P: And more useless deaths. Just like Gaza. Are you proud of that, too?

G: The civilian deaths were unfortunate, but necessary. Israel was in danger. They’re the chosen people of your boss, right?

P: My boss doesn’t have chosen people. That doesn’t make any sense.

G: The Bible says so.

P: The Bible was written by men with an axe to grind, not my boss. And didn’t you read your Declaration of Independence? It says all men are created equal. It doesn’t talk about chosen people.

G: Some people are a little more equal than others. Israel is an admirable country. It’s a democracy that doesn’t take any crap from its neighbors. We should support it even if it kills a few innocent people every now and then.

P: It hasn’t been a few over the last several years.

G: I also supported Ukraine. Give me credit for that.

P: So noted. My last question relates to a statement you made years ago about being a proud white man who refused to be silenced. Did you really think it was appropriate to turn yourself into a white Rosa Parks? Do you really see yourself as some sort of a victim?

G: It felt good to say that. I made lots of friends with the far right that day. It helped me with Trump and my career. It wasn’t totally wrong, either. Wokeness was out of control. Trump has fixed that.

P: Yes, he thinks white South Africans are the only oppressed people in the world. That’s ridiculous and offensive.

G: Any other questions?

P: No. I’ll consult with the boss and get back to you.

I initially thought that Trump Accounts were just another tax shelter for wealthy families. On further review, that turned out not to be true; contributions from parents don’t receive favorable tax treatment. Does that mean the accounts are not regressive?

No, because relatively affluent parents are in a better position than poor parents to fill out the paperwork to create the accounts and obtain federal funding.

North Carolina is a purplish state–it tends to elect Democratic governors–but it generally leans a little bit red. What does that mean for the Cooper campaign?

There is probably such a thing as a Trump-Cooper voter. Cooper will want to keep him on his side. That means, in all likelihood, that Cooper will spend less time bashing Trump than most of his blue team colleagues. When he does complain about the current state of affairs, he will probably do it without mentioning Trump’s name, and when he does single out guilty parties, they will be Trump’s evil advisers, not the man himself.