Author: hamilton1788

Trump is showing no interest in debating his GOP competitors. It’s hard to blame him for that; he has nothing to gain and everything to lose, given the size of his lead in the polls, Ramaswamy is acting as his surrogate, and he’s pretty busy dealing with his innumerable legal problems. If I were in his position, I would do the same.

But he is desperate to debate Biden, even though his record in debates is considerably less than stellar. One assumes that he plans to do his dominance thing again to try and prove that he is the only strong leader on the stage. How should Biden respond? Should he agree to debates?

Certainly not until Trump is the nominee, and then only with conditions. Biden should demand two things: first, a statement that the election is not rigged, with a promise to respect the outcome; and second, some sort of plexiglass screen to keep Trump on his side of the stage.

Joe and Dr. Jill are back in the White House discussing the campaign.

JILL: Joe, I’m concerned about the polls. It seems that everyone is down on you, even though the economy is doing pretty well. I’m worried that we might actually lose next year.

JOE: Don’t worry. The campaign hasn’t really started yet. People are still comparing me to the almighty rather than the alternative. If Trump is convicted in any of the ongoing cases, there’s no way swing voters are going to support him. It’s just not going to happen.

JILL: We don’t know that. A lot of things can go wrong.

JOE: What worries you?

JILL: Gas prices, for one. What if they go up dramatically? You don’t have much control over that.

JOE: I’ve made up with the Saudis. They understand that Trump is an unreliable ally. I don’t think we can count on them to keep prices down, but I don’t see them letting prices spike just to put Trump in the White House.

JILL: What if the Russians take Ukraine?

JOE: They don’t have the manpower, tactics, or ammunition to do that. I think Putin is going to lower the cost of the war and hope for a Trump victory. That’s what I’d do in his position.

JILL: What about the border? We’re losing ground even in bright blue areas over the asylum seekers.

JOE: That’s really a problem for Congress, not me. I don’t have some huge slush fund to give to Eric Adams. When people start understanding that, the political problem will go away.

JILL: You know they’re going to go after Kamala Harris and say you’re a doddering figurehead.

JOE: Kamala needs to rise to the occasion and prove that she’s interested in justice, not wokeness. We can help her with that, but in the end, it’s up to her. She has the talent to do it. I’ve seen it on occasion.

JILL: They’ll argue that you’re soft on China, too.

JOE: Yes, but that’s ridiculous. The record will show that Trump was only interested in the trade deficit, and even there, his agreement was a total failure. We’ve made a lot of progress with our policy of flexible containment. The public will understand that when we compare our record to Trump’s.

JILL: So, what’s the plan?

JOE: Mostly, to let Trump destroy himself with moderates every time he opens his mouth. To make the case that we’re bringing good manufacturing jobs back to the areas that were left behind, that unemployment is at record lows, and that inflation has come down dramatically. To hit Trump hard on abortion and climate change. And, of course, to talk about the fact that he is only interested in putting his political opponents in jail–he has no positive vision for anyone in America, even in the red states. He has already said the Constitution should be terminated; how can anyone trust him to keep his oath if he takes office?

JILL: Sounds good to me.

A few of Trump’s alleged co-conspirators are demanding speedy trials in the Georgia case. Why is this significant? For two reasons: first, they will undoubtedly preview some of the defenses that Trump will be featuring, including the First Amendment and the good faith belief that the election was rigged; and second, they will probably say they were acting at his direction.

Convictions in these cases will obviously help the Trump prosecution. Acquittals will damage it, possibly beyond repair. I make no predictions on the outcome.

As I’ve noted many times before, the decision on prosecuting Trump for January 6 is the land of no good options. If you do, some of the population perceives it as the act of a vengeful autocracy, which makes the country look like a banana republic; if you don’t, you’re admitting that Trump is above the law and will never be contained by it, which also makes the country look like a banana republic. The banana republic argument, therefore, cuts both ways, and is a wash.

The real questions you need to ask are more pragmatic. There is no doubt that a successful prosecution will further alienate the reactionary segment of our community from liberal democratic politics. On the other hand, a successful prosecution will also deter the more extreme members of that group from violent activity, and a not guilty verdict will presumably increase their confidence in the system. Which considerations should be given more weight?

Trump is likely to try again if he loses in 2024. He can’t do it without allies. The absence of any meaningful pro-Trump violence since 2020 suggests the ongoing prosecutions of January 6 rioters has had a chilling effect on the extremists. On balance, therefore, it would appear that the deterrence factor should prevail over the alienation argument; the evidence indicates that prosecutions make further insurrections less, not more, likely.

A few days ago, I drove by a road sign that said “Trump: Law and Order.” You might well wonder why a man who has been indicted four times would be considered by some to be a champion of “law and order.” That, however, would miss the real point of the sign.

Republicans are extremely selective about the laws they want to enforce. They think you should have the right to cheat on your taxes–after all, it’s your money, and taxation is theft. They believe fraud is OK; if you’re a victim, you’re just stupid, and it’s your own fault. And, of course, a little insurrection is acceptable, because the right is entitled to perpetual political power, so the rioters were only demanding their just due.

What “law and order” means to a Republican is strict enforcement of state laws against violent crime against persons and property. To a Republican, the local and state police are the thin blue line that protects them from rampaging urban mobs. They have to be supported at all costs, or the result will be anarchy and a woke revolution.

Trump can’t even deliver that as president, but he can talk a lot about it, and for some people, that’s enough.

Albeit with some difficulty, I managed to find and review the opinion in this case. As I predicted, the Fifth Circuit dramatically reduced the reach of the injunction. The opinion, unlike the District Court order, is not openly and obnoxiously partisan, and it contains a much more comprehensive discussion regarding the applicable legal standard. In short, it is a reasonable exercise of judicial power, unlike the District Court’s decision.

The government can continue to exercise its right to battle misinformation on social media without violating the appellate order simply by changing the tone of its message. Will Biden appeal to the Supreme Court? I don’t know, but if I were in his position, I wouldn’t.

The two fighters have battered each other into exhaustion. In the red corner, the Russians have been reduced to begging North Korea for weapons and recycling the grain blockade idea; in the blue corner, Ukraine is still putting its hopes on new and better weapons from NATO. Neither is likely to result in a breakthrough any time soon.

What could break the stalemate? The only obvious answer to that is a Trump victory in 2024. I don’t see anything on the Ukrainian side that will do the trick.

I think we are headed for a Korean “solution.” Both sides’ losses are unsustainable, and are availing them very little. The pace of the war is likely to slow down as the world waits for the 2024 election.

I have often argued that the best way to deal with the autocratic right is to make some strategic compromises on culture war issues in order to buy time for liberal democracy. Most of the extremists are old people; the idea is to make them feel secure until they die out in the fairly near future. As Sarah Palin might say, how’s that appeasement thing working for you?

It isn’t by anyone’s design, but it is happening; the Supreme Court is busy carving out safe spaces for the right, and the red states are adopting culture war legislation as if there is no tomorrow. Will that satisfy the reactionaries? Based on the muted response to DeSantis and the lack of interest in wokeness at the first Republican debate, the correct answer is a ringing maybe.

According to the NYT, the DeSantis immigration legislation is driving Hispanic laborers who are needed to deal with Idalia damage away from Florida.

Thanks, Governor. Consider this another victory in your war on wokeness. Of course, Idalia victims won’t have any money to repair damage as the result of the DeSantis insurance reforms, so in a way, the absence of laborers won’t matter much.

We all know that Trump loves tariffs, so it should come as no surprise that he is now advocating for a ten percent levy on all imports–even from friendly countries. If implemented, this would be an enormous tax increase (supposedly despised by Republicans) that would cause inflation (ditto) and strain our relationships with our allies (of course, Trump doesn’t think we have any, except Bibi, MBS, and Putin). In addition, given our current labor shortages, there would be no way to find workers for the new industrial jobs he contemplates without a massive increase in immigration. So there!

This is about as close to economic insanity as you can get. The base will probably love it, though. So would Juan Peron. Let’s make America Argentina again.

Ben Sasse was wrong: all of the polls indicate that reactionary politics are, in fact, about the weird worship of one dude. Fortunately for us, he’s old and fat, so he won’t be around much longer. But what happens after that? Who carries the torch of Trumpism after Trump? Is it DeSantis, Ramaswamy, or someone else?

Here are my predictions:

1. DeSantis has offended too many members of the base by his presumption in running to be the heir apparent.
2. The base is never going to accept an overcaffeinated Hindu tech bro as the next Trump.
3. The most plausible alternatives in the foreseeable future are two senators who were sensible enough not to run in this cycle. They offer something different: Josh Hawley is an economic populist; while Tom Cotton is a grim authoritarian conservative. Who is the most likely choice? My money’s on Cotton, but it’s too early to tell.

Ronald Reagan is dead; it’s time to bury his ideas, too. The economy exists to serve society, not the other way around, and the American worker is suffering. Inequality is getting worse. The family is collapsing, and deaths of despair are on the rise. We need to harness the state to put an end to rampant, irresponsible corporate power and help real Americans earn a decent wage again. That’s the way to return America to genuine greatness.

Rubbish! The lives of American workers have never been better, thanks to the efforts of hardworking entrepreneurs, multiple rounds of tax cuts (which we supported), and various kinds of transfer payments (which we didn’t, but they help with the argument). The last thing we need to do is bail out shiftless workers and encourage them to seek refuge in the hammock of dependency. America is all about incentives and capitalism, and if creative destruction leads to losers as well as winners, so what? Just win, baby!

Guys! Guys! Can’t we just get along? The real enemy is the woke left! Let’s put this debate aside and focus on what really matters–ending abortion and sticking it to the LGBTQ community! We can argue about that other stuff later!

These are the three conflicting ideas about labor and inequality within the GOP. The first two are mutually exclusive. How does the party reconcile them? Historically, by actually supporting #2, which serves the donor class, but using lots of culture war rhetoric and empty gestures to pick off just enough workers to win elections.

The latest crop of presidential candidates is no different.

The seemingly monolithic reactionary base is actually split on two issues. The first is abortion: the extreme anti-abortion activists want a very tough national ban, but most of the base views the issue with a degree of pragmatism and sees a national ban as political poison. The second is LGTBQ issues: they are catnip for social conservatives, but many reactionaries have libertarian leanings, don’t even know any trans people, and don’t see how oppressing gay and trans people will improve their lives.

What does this mean in the big picture? That any attempt to win over the base by outflanking Trump to the right was only going to peel off a handful of votes.

Trump and the base will undoubtedly make some sort of attempt to prove to the electorate that Biden is the Wizard of Wokeness. They will fail, of course, because nobody will believe that an old white guy is woke. That’s Biden’s superpower. Then what?

You can expect Trump to pound on the alternative argument that Biden is just a frail figurehead, and that Harris is actually running the administration. As a black female, Harris obviously makes a more plausible target on the wokeness issue. VPs don’t typically get that level of attention during a presidential campaign, but this one will be an exception.

The truth is that no one in his right mind thinks Harris has much influence over Biden’s actions. Furthermore, Harris is a sharp, pragmatic politician, not a woke warrior. It will be up to her to prove it over the next year. She had better be ready.

If you think we’ve been here before, you’re right. The Freedom Caucus is making extreme demands, and Kevin McCarthy can’t control them. He’ll either have to make another deal with the Democrats, and thus put his job at risk, or preside over a government shutdown. Should we be worried?

This isn’t the debt ceiling chicken game, because: a shutdown won’t have anything like the impact of a debt default; we’ve been here lots of times before; the Republicans will be blamed for it; and there is no chance that Trump will be the ultimate beneficiary. This is a nuisance, not a crisis.