Month: June 2020

My observations on yesterday’s LGBTQ decisions:

1. I have noted on previous occasions that simply dividing the Supreme Court into two ideological factions is accurate, but an oversimplification. These decisions support that proposition.
2. Don’t expect this to be the beginning of a trend in which the Court moves to the left. My guess is that these decisions are intended to some extent to provide “balance” for some provocative right-leaning opinions that will come out shortly.
3. This is the reactionaries’ worst nightmare: a decision written by a Trump appointee that effectively imposes PC values on them. There are no carve-outs or safe spaces left for conservative Christians in this field. They will go nuts as a result.
4. Will Trump be blamed? I’m guessing not, but time will tell.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? Yes.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Yes. She never attacked Biden or really said anything inconsistent with his positions during the debates.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? Yes, although she would have to strengthen her relationship with minorities significantly between now and then.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? Yes. Minnesota is not a bright blue state.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? Yes.
6. DOES SHE BRING SOMETHING VALUABLE TO THE CAMPAIGN? She appeals to moderates, but Biden fills that lane by himself. Picking her would offend some of his African-American supporters, who need to turn out for him to win in November.

THE VERDICT: She would make a solid VP once in office, but her campaign negatives outweigh the positives at this point in time, and putting her Senate seat at risk would be a mistake.

I’ve never interviewed Bill Barr, and I almost certainly never will. If I did, however, it would run something like this:

(I meet with Barr at his office at the DOJ)

C: I have noted lots of Catholic memorabilia on your wall. I expected that, and it leads me to my first series of questions.

B: Fine. I’m always happy to talk about my faith.

C: You’re obviously a fan of Thomas More. In the Cromwell trilogy, Hilary Mantel portrays More as a fanatical heretic burner. What’s your reaction to that?

B: More was a man of his time. Like most people, he believed that the souls of his countrymen were in danger if he didn’t stamp out heresy. He did what he thought he had to do.

C: But he is viewed as a martyr by Catholics for his opposition to the government’s religious policy. The government had good reason to view him as a threat. Can’t you argue there is no difference between the two?

B: More stood for the continuity of Christendom. He had history and right on his side. That was the difference.

C: So it’s OK to burn heretics as long as you’ think have history on your side?

B: That was a long time ago. The world has changed. We don’t do that anymore.

C: Have you ever read a description of what a heretic burning was like?

B: Yes.

C: And you still think it was OK?

B: The painful death of one person here or there is not the big picture. The big picture is using the power of the state to maintain a godly, virtuous society. Heretics were viewed as spiritual poison to the whole. There was reason, at the time, to believe that. To some extent, there still is.

C: You have a position that is roughly analogous to More’s as Chancellor. In a perfect world, would you burn heretics?

B: In a perfect world, there would be no heretics.

C: Fair enough. Let me change topics slightly. Have you read the Vermeule article in The Atlantic about “common good constitutionalism?”

B: Yes.

C: What’s your reaction?

B: I’m sympathetic, obviously, but it’s a bridge too far. Straying from originalism is too dangerous. It would open up arguments for the left that we haven’t even thought of yet.

C: So you’re an originalist? You admire Scalia, I suppose?

B: Of course!

C: Prominent constitutional historians view Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case as an absolute masterpiece of legal and historical bullshit. How do you respond to that?

B: Lots of people have lots of opinions about everything. Scalia’s was the one that mattered. The winners write the history.

C: The prevailing opinion of you on the left is that you have a corrupt deal with Trump whereby you operate as his personal attorney and clean up his messes in exchange for the right to pursue your own ideological agenda. How do you respond to that?

B: I don’t deny that I have an agenda. Everyone in this business does. I also don’t deny that I owe a degree to loyalty to Trump as long as I work in his government. I do deny that I serve as Trump’s personal attorney. Everything I do is, at least in my view, consistent with the public interest.

C: Don’t you worry, like Ross Douthat, that your concept of conservatism will be damaged by its association with Trump, given his innumerable personal flaws?

B: I don’t judge Donald Trump’s character. That’s for God to decide. What I know is that we have a similar interest in supporting traditional ideas and morality in this country. As long as we’re on the same team there, I have no problem serving him. As to the future of conservatism, I live in the present. The future can take care of itself.

C: You are a passionate proponent of executive power. What actions would you take to clamp down on individual constitutional rights in the event of an unpopular foreign war? Would you use the emergency and your ideas about the unitary executive to muzzle the media?

B: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t deal in hypotheticals.

C: Thank you for your time.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? Absolutely. Other than Biden himself, it’s hard to imagine anyone with better qualifications than Warren.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Prior to the pandemic, the clear answer to this question would have been no. Today, probably yes. Warren and her policy plans will inevitably play a large role in a Biden administration whether she leaves the Senate or not.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? Run, yes; win, not so much. She would still have all of the identity issues that plagued her in 2020, and she will be 75.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT HER SENATE SEAT AT RISK? Yes. A Republican senator from Massachusetts could flip the Senate to the GOP, thereby putting an effective end to the Biden agenda.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? Yes. She has been a prominent figure in national politics for years. There are no new skeletons in her closet.
6. WOULD SHE BE A POSITIVE FORCE IN THE CAMPAIGN? Yes. She has a gift for getting under Trump’s skin, and she would take Mike Pence apart in the VP debate.

THE VERDICT: Warren can do the greatest amount of good by campaigning hard for Biden, remaining in the Senate, and keeping an open line of communication with the White House as to policy and personnel issues after Biden takes office.

Thus far, the politics of the protests have gone as well as one could hope. The injustice of the Floyd death is apparent even to right-wingers, and Trump has been (correctly) viewed as an arsonist, not a firefighter by a large majority of the general public. Biden’s lead in the polls has consequently increased. It’s 1968 in reverse.

But potential danger lies ahead. America is going to lose interest in the protests barring any additional dramatic episodes of police brutality. The right will find martyr policemen to publicize; that’s just a matter of time. And, above all, the left is likely to overreach. The country already rejects the notion of defunding the police; fortunately, Biden and Pelosi have already put that one to bed on a national level. My bigger concern is that the focus of the argument will turn from overly aggressive police tactics that people like me find deplorable to concepts of white guilt, privilege, and reparations. On that road, my friends, electoral disaster lies.

The Republicans have decided simply to recycle their 2016 platform, which is both absurd and completely logical. The absurdity is that it uses a number of attack lines on the “incumbent” that would also apply to Trump. The logical part is that the GOP is no longer a party with any ideas; it just stands for supporting Trump, regardless of what he might say on any given day.

Who needs ideas when you have Orange Jesus? The Word has been made flesh!

In the end, Biden is going to make this decision based largely on personal chemistry. That’s a subjective standard that defies analysis from outside. The rest of the criteria, however, are more objective, and can be listed:

1. Is she qualified to be president on the first day if something happens to me?
2. Are we ideologically compatible?
3. Can I imagine her running for president, and winning, in 2024?
4. Would picking her create the risk of losing a Senate seat?
5. Has she been vetted on a national basis?
6. Does she bring something positive to the campaign?

The unusual criterion is #3. Biden knows he is a transitional figure, and may only serve one term if he is elected. There would be no point in identifying a successor who couldn’t carry on his legacy.

How do the contenders stack up? I will address that throughout the week.

ROSS DOUTHAT: Conservatism is being damaged by its identification with Trump’s narcissism, incompetence, capriciousness, and corruption.

RESPONSE: What the hell did you expect? It didn’t have to be that way; conservatives could have treated him as an independent third party instead of embracing him completely. His greatest victory was to convince the majority of the GOP that he was the only thing standing between real Americans and cultural annihilation. In November, they are likely to pay the price for it, and are entitled to no sympathy.

If you’re Mitch McConnell, and you’re thinking about the future, you can’t like what you see. On your own side, the PBP/Reactionary bargain that is the cornerstone of the GOP, and which you practically embody, is under threat from Reactionaries who want complete control of the party–even over economic issues that have always belonged to the PBPs. Even worse, the country itself is changing demographically and ideologically; millennials and minorities overwhelmingly prefer socialism and political correctness to free markets and fundamentalist Christianity. In a decade or so, your most reliable voters will be in the ground, and you will be a dinosaur. Since you, like Trump, are not willing to sacrifice the relatively pleasant present for the uncertain future by changing course, what do you do?

There are already two guardrails built into the system: the Electoral College and the Senate, particularly if the filibuster remains in existence. The third possible guardrail is the judiciary. And so, you labor day and night to get as many Federalist Society judges confirmed as possible. They can stop socialism and political correctness in its tracks even if the GOP has become a permanent minority in the other two branches.

Will it work? Only if the left-leaning millennials are willing, in the long run, to live with a political system that doesn’t respond to the will of a clear majority. On that point, I have my doubts. If the GOP doesn’t bend to the future, you’re going to see lots of pressure for significant constitutional changes in the foreseeable future.

Larry Kudlow: There is no second wave of the virus.

Response: Better go out and buy more masks! Kudlow is never right, regardless of whether the issue is within his supposed area of expertise.

As I’ve noted before, the Boomer project was all about freeing the individual from the dead hand of tradition and authority. In some ways, this was a blessing; it improved the lives of members of stifled groups and resulted in some really interesting art. In other respects, increased individualism was a disaster; think of inequality and climate change. I leave it to you to decide which way the scales tip.

Generation Xers mostly followed the Boomers. Millennials, however, predictably have a completely different take on the world. Millennials effectively reject Boomer individualism in favor of a new communal orthodoxy–socialism and political correctness. Boomers gave us Woodstock and “The Graduate;” millennials responded with cancel culture.

This is the battle within the Democratic Party. It is the difference between Biden and Sanders supporters. For now, Biden has the votes, because older people go to the polls. Ten years from now? That will probably be a different story, for better or worse.

Inevitably, we are led to the question of whether Trump is a fascist. It is a question that I have addressed on several previous occasions, not always with the same answer. Having created a definition and an archetype, it is time to tackle the issue again.

Trump meets half of the standards for the ideal fascist. He is a man; although he grew up wealthy and privileged, he still resents the Manhattan elite who found him ridiculous; he is an effective speaker in a bitter, sarcastic way; and he believes that every relationship is built on power. He does not, however, meet the other four standards. It’s a mixed bag.

As to the definition of fascism, the picture is also somewhat mixed. Some of his views are reactionary, but it is becoming increasingly clear that he is a true believer in the PBP economic formula of tax cuts and business deregulation. He uses nationalist rhetoric, but he is reducing the American political and military presence throughout the world, and his blustery talk has not resulted in war. He stomps on liberal democratic norms every day of the week, but he has made no real effort to control the press or shoot down protesters in the street, even though the opportunity has been presented to him. He is, in short, more of an eroding, corrupting force than a right-wing revolutionary.

In the past, I have referred to Trump as an “accidental fascist,” who is motivated far more by narcissism than ideology, but who might be driven by events and his desperate desire to be seen as a “winner” to become a despot. Today, I would say that split verdict is mostly accurate. That he would like to be an illiberal democrat is, I think, beyond doubt; his template for the presidency is his operation of the Trump Organization. He has come to believe that he is only accountable to the country at election time, and that it is perfectly appropriate for him to use his powers to tilt the playing field to the maximum extent possible. There is, however, no reason to think that he dreams about being a fascist dictator. If that happens, it will be due more to extreme circumstances and the efforts of his supporters than to his ideology and lust for power.

Historically, American reactionaries were Democrats, and pretty peaceful. Today, they’re Republicans; they’re angry; they’re running the country, for the most part; and they’re demanding even more. What happened? Are they fascists?

The answer to the first question is that the country and the world changed, as follows:

1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE: America will be a majority minority country in about 20 years. That scares the hell out of reactionaries, for obvious reasons.
2. ECONOMIC CHANGE: Globalization and the evolution of the knowledge economy have significantly reduced the value of the skills of American men with limited education, who are disproportionately reactionaries.
3. LEGAL CHANGE: Some of the PC agenda (gay marriage, for example) is now the law of the land.
4. CULTURAL CHANGE: Back in the day, reactionaries were certain they were the “moral majority.” Today, not so much. Practicing Christians are a minority in this country, and their numbers are dwindling by the day.

Reactionaries consequently feel threatened, and they’re lashing out. It is clear that they attach more importance to their social, economic, and political primacy than to the Constitution. They have already bought into the notion of illiberal democracy. Could they be pushed a step further, into outright fascism? Can you imagine gangs of white thugs in orange shirts beating up minorities and pledging their complete loyalty to Orange Jesus?

It would take a national catastrophe the likes of which we haven’t seen yet to get there. It would be further complicated by the fact that Trump’s strongest supporters are elderly. But yes, you can imagine it without too much difficulty.

McConnell, Trump, and their henchmen intend to make immunity for businesses from claims arising from the virus one of their principal objectives in the next round of stimulus negotiations. On a related note, it appears that some businesses are already requiring workers and customers to sign waivers before entering their premises.

Would you patronize a business that required you to sign a virus waiver? Is this a good way to regain consumer confidence? I don’t think so.

The Republicans are making it clear that they view our current economic problems as a function of inadequate supply, which can be resolved by providing legal and financial aid to producers. They’re wrong. The real issue is demand, which won’t recover until a much larger segment of the population is convinced that they can associate with other people without catching the virus.

The left-leaning world has been roiled by the Cotton “Send in the Troops” NYT op-ed. There is no division of opinion about its merits; all concerned agree that it was factually inaccurate, proto-fascist crap. The issue is whether the NYT should have printed it.

Those who say no basically make the following arguments:

1. There are ideas that are so antithetical to the values of a free press and liberal democracy that they are not worthy of public consideration. For example, the NYT would not print an op-ed calling for the extermination of African-Americans.
2. That is partly a function of self-interest. Does it make sense to provide a forum for people who don’t believe the left-leaning press has a right to exist?
3. The Cotton column was so flawed, and so self-evidently outside the boundaries of liberal democratic discourse, that it should never have appeared in the NYT.

Those who support the printing of the op-ed say the following:

1. A newspaper dedicated to liberal democratic values should err, wherever possible, in favor of more speech rather than less;
2. Cotton, like Trump, clearly speaks for a significant segment of the electorate. Ignoring their views is dangerous to those who disagree with them;
3. The column was wrong, but not clearly beyond the boundaries of decency; and
4. The column showed Cotton for what he is. He will be wearing it for the rest of his political career. Running it was, therefore, a public service.

This isn’t an easy question to answer. It depends largely on whether you think the column was more akin to, say, advocating genocide or slavery than a standard GOP policy statement. For me, however, the second position is correct in this instance. The NYT didn’t just troll its readers; it exposed the views of a potential future GOP leader and presidential candidate for the whole world to see. That is a valuable public service.