Cromwell

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.

There was a brief time during Radical Reconstruction when the creation of a liberal democratic South appeared to be possible. Its failure was inevitable, however. Why? Racism is only a part of the answer. The real reasons were that a large majority of whites in the South never bought into the vision of a multi-ethnic liberal democracy, and the taxpayers in the North, having borne huge costs from the war, were never going to keep large numbers of troops in the South for generations to impose liberal values on white supremacists. That’s not how we fight wars, even against Nazis. We win and go home.

The optimist looks at Reconstruction and argues that it at least planted the seeds for real change in the last half of the 20th century. That’s true, but it didn’t do any good for the millions of people who suffered through decades of oppression and stagnation. We look back and see the arc of history bending towards justice; they looked at the present and saw little hope for the future.

The failure of Reconstruction meant that the former Confederacy kept its backward Third World economy, run by and for a handful of wealthy landowners, for decades thereafter. Some areas still have it today.

He campaigned for president as an unabashed imperialist. Shortly after taking office, he ordered the U.S. Army to engage in acts that were designed to provoke a war, which they did. The ensuing conflict was unpopular, but thanks to brilliant leadership by generals who belonged to the other party, it was wildly successful.

He sent a diplomat to negotiate a peace treaty based on substantial territorial concessions. He subsequently decided that his terms were too lenient, but his representative ignored his instructions and made a deal based on his initial instructions. He grudgingly accepted that deal, and America became a much larger country.

Other than the part about the brilliant military leadership, it sounds a bit like Trump, but it is actually James K. Polk. I have included it in my list of underappreciated turning points because it made the Civil War much more likely. Prior to the Mexican War, moderates of both parties had more or less reached a detente on the issue based on the Missouri Compromise, but the new annexation put slavery in the territories squarely back on the table, and this time, the various efforts to solve the problem (the Compromise of 1850, popular sovereignty, and Dred Scott) were totally unsuccessful. The center could not hold. A dramatic change to the nation was in the air.

The American World Cup has been a smashing success to date. While most of the competition has been surprisingly gripping, the best story has been the willingness of local communities to embrace foreign teams. I haven’t seen any stories about hate or hooliganism, either; the fans have been patriotic in a colorful and completely inoffensive way.

It’s a long way from Trump and his comments about many of the countries represented in the World Cup, to say nothing of his position on birthright citizenship. He’s supposed to be presenting the trophy at the end; wouldn’t it be great if he has to give it to a nation he despises? Like, say, Spain?

He’s probably rooting for Argentina.

In his concurring and dissenting opinion in the birthright citizen case, the noted conservative jurist Brett Kavanaugh makes a strong case for the need for a living Constitution. For their part, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, passionate proponents of textualism and the colorblind Constitution, essentially argue that the Court should read nonexistent language into the text of the 14th Amendment to limit its application to black Americans.

That’s awesome, guys. Do you really write this stuff with a straight face?