As we know only too well, Donald Trump is all about the creation and application of leverage. He thinks he has found a way to bend Cornyn and Tillis to his will; all he has to do is threaten to pull the Blanche nomination until they leave office. Is this likely to work?
No, because they may well be replaced by two Democrats who will never vote to confirm Blanche. A certain no vote is a lot worse than a maybe with reasonable conditions.
The lowest level is the regulation of data centers by state and local officials. This involves the mitigation of typical land use impacts–traffic, noise, and excessive demands for electricity and groundwater.
The next level deals with the impacts that AI is already creating on society as a whole. Will college students with degrees in computer science be able to find work? What happens to the owners of intellectual property that is being used by the tech companies? Can students be prevented from using AI to cheat? Will our ability to engage in critical thinking be impaired? And so on.
The third level involves the long-term impacts of AI on the economy and society. Will it result in vastly higher levels of inequality? Will tech giants become the real rulers of the country? Will cybercriminals use it to shut down the economy? Will jobs be created to replace the ones extinguished by AI, and if so, how much will they pay? Will there even be a need for Americans to work? These kinds of questions are coming faster than we would like.
The top level, of course, is whether AI models will start to operate in their own interests, and whether humans will become increasingly irrelevant. We’re not there yet, but the issues are on the horizon.
In the end, it all comes down to the amount of trust that Americans have in their government and in tech companies to come up with appropriate answers to these questions. As of today, polling shows that the necessary level of trust does not even remotely exist.
With each passing day, we have new evidence that the malevolence of Trump’s DOJ is mitigated only by its incompetence and the courage of grand juries and some federal judges. Todd Blanche is in the middle of this mess. He has given no indication whatsoever that he will resist the president’s autocratic ambitions. There is absolutely no reason to confirm him as the new AG. It’s that simple.
Not for a substantial majority of GOP senators, however. As of now, only Cornyn and Tillis stand in his way. I would say the balance of probabilities is that he will ultimately be confirmed. Then what?
The GOP is inviting blue team retaliation. The next Democratic president will be sorely tempted to pick rabid partisans to head the DOJ and the FBI; the Republicans will have no basis to complain about it. I hope it won’t happen, but it might.
Climate change has a more direct impact on farmers than on most of the rest of us. As a result, you would think that they would be at the forefront of attempts to convert to clean energy. That is not, however, the case, and it isn’t just in America. Will the current wildfires in France and Spain change that dynamic?
Probably not. Reactionary views on morality and society usually prevail over economic self-interest in rural areas except in cases of extreme hardship. How else can you explain the hold that Trump has over American farmers even in the face of his tariffs and deportations?
U2 songs are mostly about love from a Catholic perspective. I would say there are two recurring themes: physical love is a natural part of life, desirable in and of itself, and useful for gaining insight into divine love; and life is a struggle, full of injustice, in which there are no easy spiritual answers. It is a vision that I frequently find compelling even though I am not a Catholic.
J.D. is a recent Catholic convert. It’s pretty clear to me that he converted because he found that Catholicism provides the strongest intellectual grounding for his reactionary views on morality and society, not because he buys into the overall message of the New Testament. He clearly loves his wife and his family, but he despises most of the rest of us; we’re only here to help him further his ambitions. His Catholicism is reminiscent of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor. I don’t find his vision compelling at all.
Lindsey Graham died unexpectedly just as one of his greatest hopes had been realized; with his sidekick Bibi, he had finally persuaded Trump to begin a war for regime change against Iran. The irony, of course, is that the long-awaited war has been a disaster, and even the Republican Party has started to have second thoughts about Israel. Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.
Graham had some good moments. He could be funny, and he could be bipartisan at times. He genuinely believed in promoting liberal democracy abroad, even as he attached himself like a barnacle to a man who is doing his best to destroy it at home. My enduring memories of him, however, will focus on two things: his abject subservience to Trump; and his white Rosa Parks speech in the Senate. Nothing to celebrate there.
Does dialectical materialism and the class struggle ultimately lead to demands for free buses and childcare? If you’re Donald Trump, the answer is yes. His political opponents aren’t just demonic and woke; they’re communists.
But let’s look at the record. If the essence of communism is public ownership of the means of production, who was it that decided that the federal government was entitled to equity interests in a variety of companies? If communism in practice is really about rejecting universal claims for human rights, which president has been completely indifferent to the oppression of dissidents in Russia and China? If communism means authoritarian government at home and violations of the Bill of Rights, who in the world is responsible for that?
You know who.
That would be Donald Trump, of course–at least, according to him. Even though Iran never had a bomb and Israel has lots of nuclear weapons, the Iron Dome, and total control of the air, Trump insists that only his air campaign saved the Israelis from utter oblivion.
Right, boss. I wonder what Bibi thinks when he hears that.
Congress created independent agencies for a reason–there are issues that are too fundamental to our system to be left to partisan politics. The administration of elections and the regulation of broadcast media come to mind. Now that SCOTUS has put all of these agencies, with the exception of the Fed, firmly within the executive branch, what should be done?
I have seen the future, and it is Brendan Carr. That should make everyone uncomfortable. Congress needs to take a look at all of the formerly independent agencies to see if they should still exist. In all likelihood, any agency with jurisdiction over elections should be eliminated, and the FCC should have its authority reduced dramatically.
Mitch didn’t invent the Electoral College, of course; it was designed by the Founding Fathers to be a group of grandees who would use their independent judgment to pick presidents. Things didn’t work out that way, of course. Today, the Electoral College is usually criticized for being anti-democratic; the winner of the popular vote is by no means assured of prevailing in the election. But is there more to the story than that?
Yes. The biggest problem with the Electoral College under today’s circumstances is that the outcomes in over 40 states are already known long before the election, so the entire focus of the campaign is on the swing states. That has two important implications: first, the residents of those states receive a disproportionate amount of attention, while the rest of the country is ignored; and second, winners are determined by a handful of votes in a few states, so there is enormous pressure on election officials in those states. That is unhealthy both for the states in question and for the nation as a whole.
The Constitution does not require states to award all of their electoral votes to the overall winner of the state. It would be much healthier for American liberal democracy if all of the states would agree to a proportional representation scheme. That would eliminate the pressure on the current swing states and require presidential candidates to campaign vigorously for votes throughout the entire country, thereby making the system far more democratic.
The referendum was created during the Progressive Era to work around heavily gerrymandered state legislatures that were dominated by business interests–most notably railroads. Could the same thing be done today at the federal level?
Yes, with a caveat; the Constitution does not contemplate the adoption of new legislation through referenda, so the outcome of the election could only be advisory. That said, it would take a brave or foolhardy legislator to disregard the clearly expressed will of the entire nation, so it would definitely be worth a try.
According to an article in this morning’s NYT, Trump has been advised that we do not have enough Patriots to deal with Iranian countermeasures if we escalate. For once, he is taking that advice and not doubling down. What happens next?
If nukes are off the table, Trump can either try to make an Obama deal as quickly as possible or he can rely on the blockade to bring the Iranians to their knees. The latter course will undoubtedly take months–possibly even years. It means higher oil prices, with everything that entails, for the foreseeable future.
Will the Iranians even agree to an Obama deal at this point? A significant faction within the regime appears to want to rub Trump’s nose in it. We’ll see.
For a man who portrays himself as the tribune of the people jousting with the evil elites, Donald Trump has certainly adopted a lot of unpopular policies. His mass deportations are loathed by Hispanic swing voters; his tariffs are driving up prices for everyone; and his war is increasingly disliked even by MAGA voters. What should we make of this? Is Trump actually an elitist or a man of principle, fighting for what he thinks is right regardless of the odds against him?
Two things are relevant here. First, Trump has never been a populist on economic issues; his mercantilist deviations from Reaganite orthodoxy are purely his own invention and have minimal support from either the party establishment or the base. Second, for Trump, populism only applies to the “real Americans” in the base. As long as he retains their support, as far as he is concerned, he still speaks for the American people, polls and popular majorities be damned.
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.
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.