Month: June 2023

In my experience, for the most part, reactionaries typically just mouth talking points provided by Fox News. Wokeness is a classic example; as Trump correctly points out, the average reactionary doesn’t even know what it means. There are, however, two issues on which they will express strong opinions without any prompting. They are:

1. WELFARE: Bumper stickers complaining that the government takes your hard-earned money and gives it to lazy, unemployed people are popular in my neck of the woods.
2. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Reactionaries frequently react strongly to suggestions that they are racists. They will argue that the American creed is that everyone is entitled to equal treatment regardless of the color of his skin, and that affirmative action violates that standard. To a reactionary, the deck is stacked in favor of minorities, and against him; that is why he is falling behind.

This world view assumes that millions of Americans have a comfortable life lounging in the hammock of dependency, that most of them are minorities, that white people and people of color are in the same position at the starting line, and that affirmative action programs are far more pervasive than they actually are. None of these statements are true, but if you try and make that case to a reactionary, you will be wasting your breath.

What does this mean, in practical terms? If you are a Democrat, and you want to improve the safety net, you will need to prove that your proposal is neither welfare nor a form of affirmative action if you want it to be accepted by a large majority of the population.

Throughout my lifetime, the Reaganite view of the state has prevailed among GOP voters. This involves reducing the size of the federal government (the military excepted) to the maximum extent possible in order to increase individual freedom and economic growth. Some of the lesser 2024 presidential candidates still subscribe to this view. The two most important candidates, however, do not.

Ron DeSantis only believes in his kind of freedom for his kind of people. He wants to expand the powers of the federal government (the executive branch in particular) in order to crush wokeness, not to expand opportunity or reduce inequality. You could call his vision of the state the dictatorship of the unwoke. Trump, on the other hand, sees the federal government as a prize which, once won, is his personal property–hence, his attitude towards public records. As far as he’s concerned, after he is elected, he has the right to do whatever he wants in office, regardless of the law and constitutional norms. It is an attitude typically identified with divine right rulers–Caligula and Louis XIV, not Washington and Jefferson.

Which of these three visions of the state will prevail in 2024? That’s really what the primaries will be about.

Rich Lowry thinks the new president–either DeSantis or Biden–should pardon Trump. By doing so, he will supposedly extract a lot of the poison from the body politic. Is Lowry right?

If DeSantis does it, no. Instead of being viewed as a selfless, bipartisan act akin to the Nixon pardon, it would be seen as the ultimate effort to own the libs, and highly resented. If Biden does it, however, it would be an act both of generosity and domination; it would show the world that Trump is dependent on his goodwill. It would also prove that the establishment isn’t as evil as Trump says it is, and avoid the logistical problems that would result with a prison inmate entitled to Secret Service protection. So, yes, it would be a good idea under those circumstances, although even Biden can’t help Trump with any state charges.

The McConnell Project has the left hemmed in. The filibuster makes partisan legislation that is not directly tied to taxing and spending practically impossible. The Supreme Court has made it clear that major policy changes through regulation will not be permitted, either. In the meantime, the red states are running wild imposing their idea of “freedom” (i.e., just another word for nothing left to lose) on disfavored groups. It feels like the Democrats are in office, but not in power. What can they do?

They don’t have enough votes to do much about red state legislatures, and they won’t have enough senators to kill the filibuster, but they can certainly complain about the Supreme Court. I’m not sure Biden will fully embrace this, but you can expect to hear a lot of discussion about reforming the Court as the judicial counterrevolution rumbles on, and I expect it to be a big issue in the 2028 primaries.

The debt ceiling is a cancer on the body politic. Biden said he wanted to resolve the issue regarding the Fourteenth Amendment after the agreement was reached, but nothing has been done since then. It doesn’t appear to be a priority. Why?

For two reasons. First of all, in the absence of a crisis, he would be asking for an advisory opinion, which isn’t permitted under our constitutional jurisprudence. Second, it is highly unlikely that the GOP will press the issue in January, 2025, because they will have no reason to do so if Trump is president, and little incentive to challenge Biden immediately after he wins an election.

Unfortunately, things will be different in 2026 and 2027. Don’t be surprised if we go through the same trauma before the 2028 election.

The conversation on wokeness resumes.

C: Before I get into the four threads of wokeness in more detail, I have a more general question. It appears to me that Trump has a legitimate argument that he was attacking wokeness long before you were. What do you say to that?

D: That’s all he was doing–talking. He always viewed wokeness as a punchline to a joke. He never took it seriously–he just used it as a tool to bind himself to the base. I’ve actually done something about it. Give me the powers of the presidency, and I will destroy wokeness forever. That’s a promise.

C: OK. With that down, let’s start with the wokeness thread that is most closely tied to you: public health wokeness.

D: That’s a good place to start. It’s right in my wheelhouse.

C: You’ve said Trump should have fired Fauci. That, in and of itself, wouldn’t have changed much. What else did he screw up, in your opinion?

D: First of all, he should have used his powers to prohibit state, local, and business mask mandates.

C: What powers are those? I’m not aware of any federal authority to do that.

D: If you look hard enough, you can always find something. You have to be willing to push the envelope to get anything done. That’s what I’ve done in Florida.

C: Yes, and you’ve lost a lot of cases in federal court.

D: Those were woke Obama and Biden judges. We’ll get rid of them. In any event, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

C: The vaccine was developed under Trump. You appear to have issues with it, as well.

D: Right. First of all, the vaccine was rushed, and inadequately tested. We don’t really know what its long term effects are. Second, it doesn’t work for everyone. Finally, vaccine mandates are always wrong, and should be prohibited. That’s on Biden, not Trump.

C: Are you an anti-vaxxer?

D: The science tells me there are problems with the vaccine. They need to be explored and publicized. That doesn’t make me an anti-vaxxer. I’m pro-freedom, not anti-vax. If people know the facts and decide to take the vaccine, that’s up to them.

C: Freedom to spread the virus and kill other people? Is that a freedom worth fighting for?

D: Human life is important, but the freedom to live and work normally is even more important. It is a balancing act, and a matter of priorities.

C: Would you acknowledge that the vaccine saved millions of lives and gave the people who took it more freedom to live normally?

D: The science makes me doubt that.

C: Your views of science are outside of the mainstream.

D: The mainstream is the establishment. The woke establishment is the problem. I don’t have any obligation to follow them when my review of the facts tells me something different.

C: Let’s move on to climate change wokeness. Do you think climate change is a hoax?

D: I’m not blind. I can see the effects of climate change. Scientists differ on whether it is man-made or not. I don’t think we can do anything about it without destroying our economy, which is based on the use of fossil fuels.

C: What do you say to the people who lose their homes and their family members in hurricanes caused by climate change?

D: I pray for them every day. It’s very sad. The government has an obligation to help them–at least if they don’t live in woke states. But we can’t throw millions of people out of good jobs trying to prevent hurricanes and wildfires, particularly when the Chinese are still putting money in coal-fired utilities.

C: So the victims are acceptable collateral damage?

D: I didn’t say that.

C: Yes, you did. Just not in so many words. Would you deny disaster relief funds to blue states until they take action against wokeness?

D: I would have to at least think about it. Wokeness has to go, whatever the cost. I will use all of the powers at my disposal to see that it does.

C: The automakers are all transitioning to electric vehicles. That is due in part to federal regulations, but mostly to public consciousness of climate change all over the world. It doesn’t make sense for America to position itself behind the curve when the Chinese, for example, are working hard on electric cars. Would you try to actually stop the transition, and turn America into an island of fossil fuel use?

D: At a minimum, I would cut off all Biden’s funding for the transition, and I would get rid of his regulations. After that, it’s up to the companies. Let the free market decide.

C: The record in Florida indicates that you are willing to spend at least some public funds for climate change mitigation.

D: That’s true. As I said, I’m not blind to the change. Mitigation is a reasonable and logical step to deal with it. I just don’t think prevention is workable.

C: Let’s move to racial wokeness.

D: OK.

C: I think you would agree that the focal point of your argument here is about systemic racism. You deny it exists, right?

D: Right. Unfortunately, there may be a few racists left in this country, but the system is not racist–at least, not today.

C: Let’s walk back through American history. We had slavery for about 250 years. It was enforced by the government. Is it possible to call that anything other than systemic racism?

D: No. Slavery was a tragedy, without a doubt.

C: After that, in the South, we had about 100 years of enforced segregation. All over the country, we had segregated schools and housing, redlining, and a variety of government programs, including entitlement programs, that discriminated against black people. Is that not systemic racism?

D: Yes, that was unfortunate, too. A few bad apples were in control. Fortunately, that changed.

C: Today, you can pick virtually any outcome you want, and black people are worse off than white people. How do you explain that other than to call it the vestiges of systemic racism?

D: Dr. King, who is a hero of mine, fought to make everyone equal under the law. He won. There has been no de jure segregation in this country since, say, the early 1970s. At that point, the job was done. Taking actions to favor one group over another is just racism by another name. It divides the country unnecessarily and makes white people who had no part in slavery or Jim Crow feel guilty. We need to put an end to that.

C: So how do you account for the differences in outcome that I described earlier?

D: It is perfectly possible for black people to get ahead in this country. Look at Obama. Look at Clarence Thomas, another of my heroes. That’s proof that there is no such thing as systemic racism.

C: So as long as a few exceptional people can get ahead, we shouldn’t look at the great mass of people who are left behind?

D: To discriminate against white and Asian people means a loss of freedom for them. Protecting freedom is more important than worrying about outcomes. In the long run, it will all balance out, anyway–at least, as long as we get rid of the hammock of dependency and affirmative action and make black people stand on their own two feet. We’ve had 50 years of misguided paternalism. Enough is enough.

C: Obviously, you hate affirmative action. Most affirmative action regulations operate in the private sector and in state and local governments. What would you do about them?

D: We have the power of the purse, which is the ultimate weapon. In addition, I will push the envelope as far as I can with my other legal powers. Biden does it; why shouldn’t I?

C: You see evidence of racial wokeness on the internet, on TV, in the MSM, and in the schools. How would you get rid of it without running afoul of the First Amendment?

D: First of all, we need a lot of new judges, including on the Supreme Court. Next, we need to use federal funding as a lever to put an end to wokeness. Finally, we need to use all of the powers at our disposal to regulate woke discussion in public.

C: What does that mean? Would you try to force the sale of the Times, for example, to Rupert Murdoch?

D: Why not? Viktor Orban would do it.

C: What leverage would you use?

D: We have the IRS, and we can change the libel laws.

C: You don’t have five votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Sullivan.

D: I’ll be working on that.

C: What would you do with the internet?

D: I think I can persuade the Court that the internet is qualitatively different from other forms of expression, so it can be censored without violating the First Amendment. Barring that, I can find some sort of emergency and use my emergency powers to get rid of harmful opinions on the web.

C: Would you prohibit students from using federal grants to attend woke schools?

D: Probably.

C: But what about their freedom to choose the right school for them?

D: Real freedom is based in truth. There is no freedom in following evil. The government isn’t obligated to give them that choice.

C: Let’s finish with sex and gender wokeness. Is it your opinion that being gay or lesbian is purely a choice?

D: The fact that the number of gays, lesbians, and trans people has increased recently suggests that it is, at least for the most part.

C: What do you want from gay people? What should be done with them?

D: They should be encouraged to turn away from sin and embrace the right path.

C: How? By conversion therapy? Does that really work?

D: My scientists say it does.

C: What if it doesn’t work? What’s Plan B?

D: Force them to go back in the closet. Stop being a pervert or a groomer. Keep it to yourself, and don’t endanger children.

C: Here’s a related question–would you use the overturning of the gay marriage decision as a litmus test for the selection of new Supreme Court justices?

D: Absolutely! The left does it all the time. We should be more open about doing it, instead of pretending that we’re open-minded on the subject.

C: Gay people suffer disproportionately from mental health problems due to their lack of acceptance in the community. Many of them try to commit suicide, and some succeed. What would you do to combat that?

D: Nothing. The objective is to stop them from choosing to be gay. Without the deterrent, they will just keep on being perverts and groomers.

C: And the same thing for trans people?

D: They’re even worse.

C: I think we’re done for today.

Both Trump and DeSantis have enemies lists, but they are different. Trump hates anyone who criticizes him or tries to prevent him from governing as the divine right ruler of America; DeSantis, on the other hand, despises people who are woke. It is the idea, not the person, that really draws his ire.

What does that mean for their governing styles? Trump will careen around like a pinball, attacking anyone who provokes him, regardless of party affiliation, while DeSantis will grimly and methodically use his executive powers to their utmost in order to root out any form of wokeness from our country. Both alternatives are awful, but they are not the same.

It is undisputed that the trust funds for the two big entitlement programs will be depleted in the foreseeable future, which means the programs will be cut significantly unless Congress takes action. Biden’s solution to the problem is sensible, if incomplete–impose the FICA tax on earnings over $400,000 per years. The two principal GOP contenders, one of whom has advocated for Social Security cuts in the past, have no plan other than to avoid benefit cuts. Biden figures to make a big issue of this during the general election campaign. What happens if he wins?

That will be up to the Republicans, who are badly split on the issue; the PBPs and CLs want benefit cuts and reject any tax increases, while the Reactionaries strongly support entitlements that are primarily earned by white Christian workers. In light of this, I suspect the GOP playbook will look something like this:

1. Support the creation of a bipartisan committee to study entitlement reform in the hope it will recommend cuts instead of tax increases, and the Democrats will be blamed for them;
2. If that doesn’t work, put off any action until the last minute, agree to fill in the gap with general revenues, and demand massive spending cuts in other programs to avoid an increase in the deficit. When the Democrats refuse, blame them for the entitlement cuts that follow.

If you have to explain the origins of a holiday to the average person, it probably shouldn’t be one. So it is with Juneteenth.

If the point is to celebrate the end of the Civil War, it would make sense to turn the day of Lee’s surrender into a holiday. If the objective is to commemorate the end of slavery, pick the date the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, or the ratification date for the Thirteenth Amendment. If you think we need a second day (in addition to MLK Day) to talk about equal rights and racism, the logical day to celebrate is the date the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. I could support any of those. But the practical significance of Juneteenth is close to zero. As a holiday, it belongs in the dustbin of history.

Given the likelihood of a GOP majority in one or both houses of Congress, you might think taxes would be off the table in a second Biden term. You would be wrong.

The Trump individual tax cuts expire in 2025. The GOP will be desperate to keep them in place. That gives Biden leverage to push new safety net spending in exchange for meeting the GOP demands. History tells us he will use it.

The deficit scolds will complain. They will even be right. But that’s the way politics work in America today; choices that appear to be hard are actually impossible.

Biden ran his primary campaign as a moderate and a conciliator. Due largely to the effects of the pandemic, he then ran against Trump as a radical reformer–a new FDR. While some of his progressive agenda squeaked through Congress, his ambitions to replace the dollar store economy with something more efficient and equitable failed due to the filibuster and the opposition of Manchin and Sinema. After the 2022 election, out of necessity, he gave up most of his ambitions and started engaging in Clinton-style triangulation. Call it the Spirit of ’96.

Since the playing field is tilted against the Democrats in 2024, it is very likely that Biden will face at least one, and more likely two, GOP majorities in Congress if he is re-elected. What would a second Biden term look like? What kind of an agenda will he have? I will be exploring the major themes in a series of posts over the next week.

Millions of our most recent asylum seekers have come from countries with nasty left-wing regimes that DeSantis undoubtedly deplores. They are, by and large, looking for an opportunity to work, not a handout. They are predominantly Christian, and socially conservative. They despise socialism and know nothing of non-binary people. In short, they are the opposite of woke.

You would think DeSantis would welcome these people into our country, as they are his natural allies in the war on wokeness. Instead, he spends Florida taxpayer money flying them to California and Martha’s Vineyard. Why?

There are two possible answers–opportunism or racism. The two are not mutually exclusive. I lean more towards the former. Take your pick.

For Donald Trump, loyalty and empathy are a one-way street; he demands all, but gives none. Why, then, do white Christians from rural areas identify so strongly with the thrice-married former casino owner from New York? Why, when he says he is their retribution (not just his), do they believe him?

I think there are two reasons. First, even though Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he genuinely resents the fact it wasn’t platinum. His fans appreciate and relate to that resentment. Second, while Trump may have some orthodox GOP views on substance, he never mutes himself, so it never appears that he is selling out to the establishment. That sets him apart from any of his competitors.

The McConnell Project is based on checks and balances and Republican advantages in the Electoral College. It maintains traditional constitutional norms, but uses the filibuster and the right-leaning Supreme Court to deny the left the ability to make significant policy changes while in office. It is a step towards illiberal democracy, but it is a long way from the ultimate destination, because it also puts limits on the right’s ability to legislate, and permits the left to win elections, albeit with some significant handicaps.

DeSantis, if elected president, won’t accept the McConnell Project, even if he tolerates the bare forms of American liberal democracy. He wants to make fundamental changes to American society that won’t be permitted by the filibuster or originalist judges. He will be howling for the abolition of the filibuster practically the minute he takes office.

Trump, of course, completely rejects the notion of checks and balances. He wants arbitrary power for himself as the tribune of the red people.

Is it any wonder McConnell won’t speak to Trump anymore?

For decades, America had a relationship with both Israel and Saudi Arabia that was based on a quid pro quo. America provided security guarantees; Israel served as a shining example of liberal democracy; Saudi Arabia kept oil prices down; and both Middle East countries followed the American line on foreign policy issues. The relationships were hardly frictionless, but for the most part, they worked.

That was then, and this is now. The natives are getting restless. The Saudi government has worked with the Russians to keep oil prices higher than necessary, made its own deal with Iran, and is doing more business with China than before. The new Israeli government isn’t content to oppress the Palestinians; it wants to make life miserable for blue Israelis, as well. Neither country has provided us with any meaningful assistance on Ukraine. How should we respond?

Israel and Saudi Arabia are sovereign nations, so they have every right to declare independence from us if that is what they want. They are not, however, entitled to security guarantees from us under those conditions. It’s the old deal, or none.