Month: July 2024

The New Right position on LGBTQ people is simple and clear: they are perverts; they are a threat to the moral fabric of the nation; they are not entitled to any legal rights; and they need to be stamped out. But fairly recent Supreme Court precedents provide protections to all but trans people. How can that be fixed?

With the current Supreme Court, many things that were previously unthinkable are now possible. The pending case on trans medical care should be an easy kill. As to the gay marriage and sodomy decisions, who is to say they can’t be overturned? Don’t be surprised if a few of the really deep red states start pushing the envelope in the near future; after all, that’s how reactionary change typically comes about.

That the israelis would attack a senior Hezbollah military figure in Lebanon after the ghastly attack on their civilians was to be expected. Nothing about that upsets me much.

But to kill a purely political Hamas official responsible for the cease-fire negotiations inside Iran? What possible good will that do? Is Bibi actually trying to provoke a wider Middle East war in order to stay in power indefinitely?

I never believed the Israeli cabinet was serious about a cease-fire, but this is ridiculous.

I am old enough to remember a time in which presidential candidates chose running mates on the basis of geographical balance. On occasion, the VP was picked to deliver a particular key state with which he had a strong connection. Ideological balance occasionally entered into the decision, as well. Identity played no role in the process because all of the candidates were white men.

That has changed. Today, the Democrats are primarily concerned with maintaining some sort of identity balance. You no longer see blue team tickets featuring two white men, and you will probably never see one with two women. That is why Harris will pick a white man with ties to the moderate wing of the party as her VP.

it will be Biden-Harris in reverse.

The New Right thinks women have way too much power in today’s America; as Mark Robinson says in a Josh Stein commercial, men should be “leading the charge.” This is primarily an economic phenomenon; the shift to a knowledge-based economy has devalued the male advantage in strength in the marketplace, to the benefit of women. Ideology also plays a role, however; women have argued forcefully that they are entitled to the same rights as men to exploit their talents and enjoy sex, which is incompatible with traditional American notions of family life.

What can the government do to reverse these trends? The New Right economic solution is to use tariffs and deportations to raise wages and revive dead manufacturing jobs, thereby making it possible for a single male breadwinner to support a family. I will discuss this prescription at more length in a subsequent post. On the ideological front, the idea is to use government to discourage sex, but encourage procreation. This includes limitations on abortion and the active promotion of traditional Christian values.

The mainstream of the GOP has done its best to distance itself from efforts to eliminate access to birth control because they are hideously unpopular. It is difficult for me to see how the apparently self-contradictory New Right agenda item on sex and procreation can be accomplished without birth control restrictions, however. Look for the GOP to start pushing them as soon as it believes its grip on power has become unassailable, particularly in red states with gerrymandered electoral districts.

Donald Trump, in some respects, is best understood as an insult comedian; like Don Rickles, he says nasty things about his opponents, but in a way that permits him to argue that he doesn’t really mean it. He’s just joking. He shouldn’t be taken literally. That’s what his fans say, and a lot of people believe it.

But what works for Trump probably won’t work for Vance, or any other Republican. Vance tried to explain his “childless cat ladies” comment by saying it was just “sarcasm,” but the explanation isn’t working. Like most people, Vance has a history of meaning exactly what he says–at least until his interests cause him to change his mind–so nobody is going to accept that he is suddenly taking on Trump’s persona.

If Vance has any sense, he will learn to keep his mouth shut and his head down instead of inflaming the public discourse. That’s Trump’s job.

There are plenty of overt white supremacists on the right, but they aren’t the mainstream. After all, America, unlike any European or Asian country, is a nation of immigrants, so trying to pin down an American identity purely in racial terms is not realistically possible. There is no practical way to make the tens of millions of people of color just go away. The best the right can do is to lock in the existing advantages of white people by pretending that America has completely shed its past, and by controlling further changes to the nation’s racial composition.

How will this be done? First of all, by precluding additional immigration, and by deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible. Second, by ordering public schools to teach students that racism in America was just a blip and is long gone. Third, by completely eliminating all forms of affirmative action. Fourth, by defanging the Voting Rights Act. Finally, the New Right is a pro-natalist party; perhaps the problem can be solved by having lots of white babies.

None of this will make public discussion of our country’s racist past impossible. Will the right go so far as to censor the ideas of adults on racial issues? That’s the frontier on this point; it will be discussed at some point if the right’s political position becomes unassailable.

The New Right vision for America is clear. A white man returns to his large suburban single-family home after a long day at his manufacturing job and is greeted enthusiastically by his stay-at-home wife and his three children. They eat together, watch TV together, and say Christian prayers before they go to bed. It’s an idealized version of the 1950s.

But it doesn’t even slightly resemble the America of 2024. How does the New Right get from Point A to Point B? How does it propose to overcome the powerful legal, economic, and cultural forces that will oppose it every step of the way?

That will be the topic of a series that will occupy this week.

Trump is going to wear his decision to make Vance his running mate like an albatross around his neck for two reasons. First, Vance’s pungent criticisms of him over the years will feature prominently in commercials and at the debates. Second, Trump will be saddled with Vance’s far right positions on issues such as abortion and “cat ladies” whether he agrees with them or not. Any attempt to distance himself from his partner will only make his judgment in selecting him look that much more questionable.

Trump didn’t have to choose someone with such a long paper trail. His decision not to go with a completely obsequious cipher is what overconfidence looks like.

In 478 BC, the Athenians and a number of other Greek city-states entered into a military alliance to deal with the ongoing Persian menace. At first, the idea was that each member of the alliance would provide a fixed number of ships for a fleet. Over time, it became more convenient for the allies to provide money instead of ships; it was paid into a central treasury in Delos. The Athenians subsequently moved the treasury to Athens and started using the money for their own purposes, including the construction of the Parthenon. The alliance had evolved into a protection racket, usually described by historians as the Athenian Empire.

Does this sound a bit familiar? Do you suppose that Donald Trump, that well-known classical scholar, is aware of this story? Could his plans for NATO be based on the Delian League?

No. Trump got his ideas from gangster movies. The result is the same, however.

For all of his swagger, divisiveness, and focus on culture war issues, Trump governed as an orthodox Republican on the issues of tax cuts and deregulation during his first term. Some pundits are assuming that the Vance nomination means Trump 2.0 will lean more towards national conservatism and the protection of workers; in other words, he will be a real populist, not a faux opportunistic one. Are they right?

Not really. First of all, Trump is too personally volatile to adhere permanently to any kind of overriding ideology. Second, he loves to surround himself with people with different opinions in order to keep his options open. Vance will be only one of many voices in the room on issues affecting workers. Finally, to the extent that Trump actually does have fixed views on economic matters, they include the usual business tax cuts, opposition to unions, and deregulation in addition to tariffs and the creation of labor shortages through deportations. As a result, his policies are likely to be a mishmash of the old and the new, with predictably chaotic results.

Mike Johnson has warned GOP candidates not to launch attacks on Harris based on race or gender. Will they listen?

Of course not! White male supremacy is at the heart of MAGA ideology. The chief spokesman has made a living engaging in identity politics. He feeds red meat to the base about as often as he breathes. Do you really think he’s going to stop now?

It’s worth repeating the basics here. The Israeli military has clearly identified Hamas, not the Palestinian population as a whole, as the enemy in Gaza. It wants a cease-fire and a reasonable plan for governing Gaza from the cabinet. It feels overstretched in light of the threat from Hezbollah. In all of these things, it is correct.

But the government does not agree, for two reasons. First of all, Bibi knows that he faces a reckoning from the Israeli public for his failure to prevent the Hamas attack as soon as the war is over, so he has every incentive to keep the conflict going as long as possible. Second, the Israelis are traumatized and feeling very sorry for themselves. Like the government, they think the Palestinian population is complicit in October 7 and are therefore indifferent to the suffering of civilians. As to the future, they prefer to postpone thinking about it seriously until the war is over.

To the extent that there is any kind of a plan for postwar Gaza, it is that an independent civilian group of moderate Arabs will do the job for the IDF. This “plan” is pure fantasy. No Arab country is going to pay for the privilege of cleaning up mountains of rubble and being Israel’s jailer. America–even one under Trump–isn’t going to do it, either. The Israelis are facing an occupation of indefinite length, along with a significant degree of anarchy in Gaza, at their own expense.

That may not sound like a problem to the Israeli public today, but wait and see what it thinks five years from now.

Harris has promised to prosecute the case against Trump. Does that mean Trump can get an order from Judge Cannon stopping her on the ground that the prosecution isn’t authorized by federal statute?

Just kidding–sort of.

It won’t be enough for Harris to argue that Trump is a felon and a fraudster–everyone already knows that. The case against Trump has to look forward to deal with his plans to raise prices for middle-class consumers, abandon Ukraine, ignore climate change, isolate America, build huge deportation camps, and give wealthy businessmen another big tax cut. In the end, it is future prospects and perceived self-interest, not moral judgments, that will decide the election.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, senior moment blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

I had a bad debate last month, and then I had to choose.

The polls were looking bad; if I continued, I would lose.

___________

I did my best to soldier on, but no one had my back.

The MSM went after me, and no one cut me slack.

The donors wouldn’t give to me, and things were looking black.

Nancy and Obama said the party should change tack.

____________

I’ve got the blues.

The Lyndon Johnson blues.

I wish I could keep fighting on

Lord knows I’ve paid my dues.

The torch has passed to Harris now

Her chances don’t look great.

I hope this doesn’t turn into

A 1968.

Imagine that you are Gretchen Whitmer and you are thinking about mounting a campaign for the nomination. Since the delegates were originally pledged to Biden and he has endorsed Harris, your chances of success are slim. If you fail, you will be roundly attacked for being divisive and damaging the party in the existential battle against Trump, which will hurt your chances in 2028. If, against the odds, you succeed, you will have to put together a national campaign in record time even though you have no experience running outside of Michigan. You will have to do something to deal with the anger of the Harris supporters, who will feel their candidate is entitled to the nomination. In addition, you would be starting the campaign as a big underdog, given the current state of the polls.

Is it any wonder she is not, in fact, mounting a campaign for the nomination? Running against a highly unpopular J.D. Vance in 2028 sounds like a much better bet.