Month: December 2020

It isn’t the welfare of the American people; we already learned that in 2009. It certainly isn’t the suffering of hundreds of millions of residents of blue states; they can go to hell, as far as he’s concerned, even though their tax money keeps his state afloat. No, what really moves Mitch is, as you might have guessed, the prospect of losing his job as Majority Leader! His two Georgia senators are taking a beating for doing nothing on the pandemic, so action on a stimulus package has suddenly become imperative for him.

Pathetic, but true. It tells you how Biden will have to manage him for the next two years.

The gist of the Flight 93 article was that the state of the nation was so dire, the electorate was fully justified in putting its fate in the hands of an outsider lacking the usual qualifications and personal characteristics to be president. What did we have to lose? The status quo had to be disrupted, whatever the costs and risks, because it clearly led to ruin.

Judged by those standards, the Trump years were a success. Invincible ignorance, divisiveness, corruption, and violations of constitutional norms were just different ways of overturning an evil establishment. The worse it got, the more Trump was viewed as fulfilling his promises to the base. They shared his sense of grievance with the establishment, and adored him for trying to shatter it by any means available, even if he did it for himself, not them.

Trump eroded our faith in our liberal democratic system, but he didn’t replace it with anything except himself. In about a month, he will be gone. What happens then? Will faith in the system be restored? Will it be overturned in favor of illiberal democracy or fascism? Everything is on the table now. Dramatic change is no longer unimaginable.

No pressure on you, Mr. President-Elect.

Donald Trump decided to engage China in a ruinous trade war in which American farmers were, as one would predict, the most prominent victims. He responded to the plight of these supposedly rugged individuals by giving them handouts and thus increasing their dependence on the state. In spite of this, rural areas voted overwhelmingly for the thrice-married former casino owner from New York over a bland, avuncular Democrat. Why?

It isn’t because farmers have an issue with big government; they have relied on federal programs for years. It’s the culture war, of course. Rural residents view the GOP as the party of self-reliant, hardworking, oppressed white Christians, and the Democrats as, well, the opposite.

It has to be pointed out that this kind of cultural and political division is hardly just an American phenomenon, as anyone versed in European history can tell you. The difference between America and Europe is that our federal system gives a disproportionate amount of influence to rural residents, so their opinions matter more here than elsewhere.

What can the Democrats do to resolve this problem, short of amending the Constitution to reallocate power? They can put more emphasis on rural redevelopment plans and infrastructure. They can pick candidates who look and sound like farmers. Above all, they can throttle down the culture war, and make it clear that white Christians have a valued place in their vision of America.

The bottom line, however, is that most of this will only be effective on the margins for the foreseeable future. Converting rural America is going to be a hard slog, with Trump, Fox, and the rest of the right preaching the gospel of division every day.

The McConnell Project, of course, is locking in minority rule by confirming as many conservative judges as possible, while denying approval to anyone left of center. The Biden victory obviously interferes with that objective. How will McConnell respond? Will he give every Biden appointment the Merrick Garland treatment?

I don’t think so; that would be an obvious violation of his constitutional responsibility, and one without precedent. McConnell prefers to bend the rules or make new ones rather than engage in blatant violations of the ones that are already written in stone. He will just process Biden’s nominations very slowly, reject anyone the base really hates, and hope that things return to what he views as normal after 2024.

Mitch McConnell is a man with an agenda. When Trump was busy cutting taxes and appointing conservative judges, the two were enthusiastic partners. Otherwise, McConnell was careful not to provoke him, but he mostly ignored him. Trumpian outrages were met with silence or masterly equivocation. Whether you took that as assent or objection was up to you.

You can be certain that Trump will be demanding unceasing resistance to the new administration from GOP members of Congress after January 20. How will McConnell respond? In the same way as before. He will brush off Trump’s comments politely and do exactly what he thinks is necessary to regain power, which, in most cases, will not involve following the Trumpian line.

If you want to take power as a fascist, and you don’t have a strong following in the military, you need a large group of violent thugs with snappy team t-shirts under your unquestioned control. Mussolini’s guys wore black; Hitler’s Germans predictably went for a duller brown look.

We have plenty of right-wing militias in America today, but they aren’t prevalent enough to be much of a threat, and they aren’t under a single command. Will that change in the next four years? Will someone–either a recognized right-wing leader or someone we haven’t heard of yet–try to put himself at the head of these groups, and use them to win power?

It could happen; Trump didn’t do it, but he has shown the way for harder men with his authoritarian rhetoric and open disdain for liberal democratic values. Keep your eyes on this issue during the next few years.

Like John Bolton, William Barr knew everything he needed to know about Trump when he was offered the AG job. He understood perfectly well that Trump was capricious and corrupt and vastly more committed to his own interests than those of the nation. He accepted the job, anyway, because his agenda largely meshed with Trump’s, and because he thought he was smart enough to keep the man on golf cart under control.

Guess again, big guy! He probably thinks he salvaged his reputation by resigning. What he really did was point out how stupid he was to work for Trump in the first place. He’s a moron, not a martyr.

Life in the time of Trump.

The battle lingers on.

The man on golf cart says he won

But now his chance is gone.

Inauguration’s weeks away

And then he’ll have to leave.

Half of us will celebrate.

The other half will grieve.

A few of Trump’s prominent supporters have dispensed with the transparently bogus fraud narrative and are calling for the man on golf cart to declare martial law and nullify the results of the election. How could this be justified?

In the end, there are only two sources of sovereignty: the people and God. The argument here clearly is that God made Trump president; the American people have no right to thwart His will through something as meaningless as an election.

Stop laughing. It worked for Louis XIV–why not Trump? They even have the same taste in furnishings!

It’s fair to assume that a number of prominent Republicans who want to take the GOP in a different direction plan to run in 2024. These include Larry Hogan (making the GOP decent and respectable again) and Rick Scott (cut federal spending, regardless of the public costs). But what about the Trump wannabes? Who could run, and how would they distinguish themselves from the competition?

Here is a list, with their respective “qualifications:”

1. DON JR.: Obviously, not as long as Dad is in the picture. If you’re looking for Trumpy genes and the ability to own the libs, he’s your guy. Otherwise, there is no reason to vote for him. He has no experience running anything in government, and he can’t even argue that he built a successful business from nothing.
2. RON DESANTIS: As the governor of a large state, he has some real qualifications for higher office. He isn’t as bad as Rick Scott. That said, he botched the pandemic, and he barely got elected in the first place. He also doesn’t own the libs with the panache of his role model.
3. MIKE POMPEO: He’s certainly Trumpy enough, but he doesn’t bring anything special to the table other than the ability to abuse journalists who ask him hard questions. Trump’s loss in 2020 does him a lot of damage.
4. MIKE PENCE: Known only for his ability to lick Trump’s boots. His sanctimonious demeanor won’t wear well with an electorate that wants to kick liberal butt.
5. JOSH HAWLEY: Well-qualified and has a shtick: national conservatism. Think of a less corrupt Trump with better connections in the religious community and an idea that could wear well in the future. He apparently claims he’s not running, but I don’t believe him.
6. TOM COTTON: Trump with an authoritarian twist. Trump talked about shooting protesters; Cotton would do it. Unlike Hawley, he would suck up to rich people, and they would love him.

If Trump doesn’t run, my money’s on Cotton, who would position himself as a supporter of the Orban Option. At that point, stuff really starts hitting the fan.

A number of left-leaning commentators, most notably on Politico, are trying to reassure us that there will be no Trump comeback in 2024. There are two reasons given for this: there is no precedent in anyone’s memory for a former president maintaining any meaningful level of influence; and the GOP will want to move on from a proven loser with unsavory, undemocratic views. Joe McCarthy and George Wallace disappeared from the national stage; he will, too. Are they right?

Maybe, but I’m not as confident as they are. Trump has a hold on the reactionary base unlike any other, as evidenced by his vote total, even though he lost. The MSM are Trump co-dependents; keeping him alive and relevant would be good for business. The country is more polarized than it has been since the sixties–the 1860s. And, of course, he has every reason to keep his options open, as I’ve noted in several previous posts.

Trump’s age and health may keep him from running when it is all said and done. Given the complete lack of courage and principle shown by virtually all of his potential opponents, however, the possibility of a primary challenge is unlikely to deter him. I can’t imagine anyone other than a CD governor taking him on, and I can’t see him losing to someone on the extreme left of his party. His legal problems will not influence his admirers in the slightest. In short, if he is ready, willing, and able to run when 2023 rolls around, he will be the frontrunner by a large margin.

Trump being who he is, he can’t help using a preemptive fraud narrative to protect himself from being perceived as a loser in case things don’t go his way. He did it in the 2016 primaries; he did it again in the general election; and, of course, he’s doing it now, and thereby doing lasting damage to the health of our political system. Not that he cares.

But what will he say in 2024? What is the point of voting for him if the system is rigged to defeat him? That will surely be a problem for him, on its face.

The bottom line is that he and his followers don’t really believe in the ridiculous conspiracy theories they have been spouting for the last few months. They do, however, believe that the political, social, cultural, and economic systems are biased against people like them; that is the essence of being a reactionary. That is what they really mean by a rigged election, why they embrace nonsensical theories with no factual support, and why tens of millions of people will come out and vote for him if he runs in 2024.

“Don’t mess with Texas,” they say. We were a sovereign state at one point. We have the biggest and best of everything. Our people are tough. Don’t try to tell us what to do, or else!

It appears that Texas has now taken this slogan to a whole new plane. Now the state has the right to tell all of the other states what to do! Texas is the United States! The rest of us are just subjects!

Absurd? That is the conclusion you draw from their ridiculous litigation.

There are two looming deadlines that may well dominate the public discussion during the last half of the Biden administration: the Medicare Trust Fund is projected to become insolvent in 2024 as the result of the pandemic and chronic funding problems; and the individual Trump tax cuts expire in 2025. How will they play out?

Both provide opportunities for Biden to divide the GOP and accomplish important goals. In the case of Medicare, his response certainly will be to raise the earnings limit on the FICA tax, which will require McConnell to choose between two of his most important constituencies–the elderly and wealthy businessmen. Biden will also undoubtedly propose making the tax cuts permanent except for highest earners; McConnell will have to give up something really important if he wants to protect his donors from significant tax increases.

We’re going to endure at least two years in which the GOP Senate possesses most of the leverage. This will be the exception. Enjoy it.

Trump cared a lot about investors, but in the end, they weren’t that impressed with him. There has been no market collapse since it became clear that he lost the election. The money men have moved on. They’re happy with divided government and an end to Trump’s capriciousness.

Since Trump is openly taking names on the legitimacy issue, it possible that he would retaliate against business in 2024 by supporting some version of national conservatism? I doubt it, for the following reasons:

1. Trump doesn’t believe in much except his own overriding awesomeness, but his affinity for orthodox tax cut and deregulation Republican economics appears to be genuine.
2. Embracing national conservatism would mean implicitly admitting he was wrong the first time around. Trump doesn’t do that.
3. The legitimacy issue will have died down by 2024.
4. He needs support from the donor class to win. The base alone can’t get him elected.