Author: hamilton1788

Conventional wisdom tells us that Jeffries and Schumer are doing a poor job of mobilizing public opinion against the Trump agenda. Is the allegation fair?

Jeffries and Schumer, like Pelosi before them, are neither prominent ideologues nor dynamic public figures. They were elected to their respective positions because they are good at maintaining party unity and rounding up votes. Those skills have great value when the Democrats are in the majority–less so when the Republicans run the place.

The Democrats’ agenda will be expressed purely as a reaction to Trump until after the midterms. Once the primaries start, that will change; in the end, the Democrats will have a positive program and a duly elected leader again.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Jeffrey Epstein blues.

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

The story just won’t go away, and now I’ve got to choose.

Should I come clean, or just deny? Either way, I lose.

____________________

Bondi put me in this bind by hyping up the case.

I’d of done it differently if I were in her place.

The story was of use to me when I was in a race,

Now that I’m the president, it’s making me lose face.

_______________

I’ve got the blues.

The Laura Loomer blues.

The loonies won’t get off my back

For that, there’s no excuse.

The story just keeps grinding on;

It just won’t go away.

For once in my exalted life

I don’t know what to say.

There is no known reason to believe this, but conspiracy theorists don’t traffic in facts, so assume for purposes of argument that Trump’s name shows up on an Epstein client list. Would MAGA care?

You can divide the MAGA movement into extremists who believe that Trump was sent by God to expose the corruption of the left-leaning elite and more mainstream types who follow him in spite of his personal shortcomings because they hate the same people he does. The latter group is perfectly aware of Trump’s record and simply does not care as long as he delivers the goods for them. Hypothetical facts establishing a closer tie between Trump and Epstein would make no difference whatsoever to them. As for the extremists, they would find this information uncomfortable, but they would find a way to spin it that would preserve the narrative. For example, they could say that Trump was only trying to get close to Epstein in order to expose him and his coastal elite henchmen at a later date.

In short, the answer to the question is yes–we have reached peak Epstein, barring some new incredible public relations blunder by Trump or his underlings.

The right-wing Christian podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey doesn’t really object to empathy; she just thinks it is used for the wrong purposes to benefit the wrong people. In the case of abortion, for example, she thinks we should focus our feeling on the fetus, not the struggling woman. Transgender people are abominations in the eyes of God; regardless of their personal plight, we should be trying to stamp them out, not relieve their pain. In the case of illegal immigration, her concern is for the handful of victims of crimes committed by the immigrants, not the myriad of problems created by mass deportations. And black people should just get over it and stop blaming their troubles on guiltless white people.

When asked about clear acts of cruelty supported by the Christian right, Stuckey will admit they exist in the abstract, but glide over them and return to her talking points. After all, those people are her friends, and there is no point in calling them out.

The bottom line here is that Stuckey is a reactionary who believes that straight white Christians are the real victims in American society and that everyone else is at best deluded and at worst positively evil. That’s what she really means by “toxic empathy”

The author of an article in Politico argues that there are three possible reasons why Trump is battling the base over Epstein. Option 1 is that he knew perfectly well from the beginning that there was no client list or conspiracy, but he used the story for his political benefit, and he doesn’t want to admit that he lied; Option 2 is that the records will show that he had a closer relationship with Epstein than he wants to concede; Option 3 is that Trump, Bondi, Patel, and the rest genuinely believed in the conspiracy, now know there wasn’t one, and refuse to admit they were wrong, because backing down would be a sign of weakness. That analysis is probably correct.

Given Trump’s history, I would bet the ranch on #1. When he makes outrageous base-pleasing statements that don’t go over well, he usually mitigates the damage by saying he was joking. Maybe he should try that again.

A few weeks ago, Bibi sent a letter nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. I’m sure a testimonial from a man most of the world considers a war criminal will be enough to push him over the line.

What, exactly, has Trump done to deserve the prize? Is he worthy because he only bombed Iran once? Because he tried unsuccessfully to get a ceasefire in Gaza? Because he waffles about sending weapons to Ukraine? Because he might be willing to trade Taiwan for economic concessions? Because he only threatens to engage in military operations in Mexico and Panama?

The analogy isn’t perfect, but when I heard about the letter, I imagined Mussolini nominating Hitler for the prize because he agreed at Munich not to swallow Czechoslovakia in one gulp. Trump, to his credit, isn’t a warmonger, but he certainly isn’t a force for peace and stability, either.

Ross Douthat has an interview with a hard right evangelical Christian podcaster named Allie Beth Stuckey in today’s NYT. Most of the interview revolved around her views on culture war issues; I have not yet decided how, if at all, to respond to them. As a sort of throw-away, however, she argued that white people should not be blamed for what happened to black people 200, or even 50, years ago. That is a typical response to questions about systemic racism by reactionaries. Is it the correct way to analyze the problem?

No. Here are two facts about racism that cannot be disputed:

1. Black people were subjected to both de jure and de facto racism from the beginning of colonization until, at the very earliest, the middle of the 1960s.
2. Black people have less wealth, lower incomes, shorter life spans, poorer housing, and less education than white people on average as of the day I am writing this.

Individual “blame” is not really the issue. Here are the pertinent questions:

1. Do you agree that #2 above is the result of #1? If not, how do you explain the discrepancy?
2. If your answer to the first question is yes, do you think this is a problem that government is required to address, or do you believe average conditions are irrelevant, because America is a nation built purely on individuals, not groups?
3. If you think the discrepancies should be addressed by government, what is the best way to deal with them?

The hard right never gets to #3. To the center and the left, it is the only issue that is reasonably debatable.

Under pressure from the American colonists, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1765. At the same time, however, Parliament also passed a Declaratory Act, which made it clear that the British government had the legal right to raise revenue from the colonists in the future with or without their consent. In other words, the repeal of the Stamp Act was an act of grace that wouldn’t be repeated in the future. We all know how that turned out.

In a similar vein, ten GOP senators, including several who voted for the rescissions package, just sent a letter to OMB noting that money appropriated for specified local educational programs was being withheld by the executive branch against their wishes. The letter is clearly an effort by these senators to reassert the principle of legislative control over the power of the purse, even as it is being violated by the rescissions package. Don’t do this again, in other words. What we just did was a one-off.

Right. Tell it to the colonists.

I invented the term “PBS Republican” when I was a young lawyer in the 1980s. The archetype was a prominent local politician who could occasionally be seen asking for money for the local PBS station during begging weeks. He was highly educated and highbrow, so he supported government funding for public television and for environmental programs for both selfish and selfless reasons. He was a man with whom the left could do business.

As last night’s rescissions vote proves, the PBS Republican is a dying breed, or at least has gone deep underground. He hasn’t been seen since Mitt Romney lost the election in 2012. Will he ever return? Not unless Trump is viewed as an utter failure and is therefore repudiated by his party, like George W. Bush.

The Senate voted 51-50 on two procedural motions last night to advance a Trump rescission package cutting public radio and TV and foreign aid. Those votes would be unworthy of comment except for the fact that the administration refuses to specify in writing how the cuts will be allocated. As a result, approval of the package amounts to an unlawful acceptance of impoundment.

Some of the senators have been mollified by unenforceable oral promises by OMB to use money for specific purposes. They promise that they will never support another rescission package if the administration doesn’t keep its word. Sure. Once the message has been sent that impoundment is OK, nothing will stop Trump from doing it again and again and again, with or without approval from Congress.

My wife enjoys watching crime programs on TV. On Monday, it was a Netflix story about Gabby Petito; last night, it was the first few installments of a program about the Idaho murders. What do these programs have in common, other than homicides? In both of them, amateur sleuths operating on social media mercilessly harass innocent bystanders and family members and make life difficult for law enforcement in their attempts to gain followers by pursuing what they pass off as the “truth.”

To a populist, everyone with access to a smartphone is an expert. These programs are proof, if it was ever needed, that some issues need to be left to the real experts.

C: I’ve gathered you together to talk about the first six months of Trump 2.0. What grade would you give it?

S: An A.

M: C minus.

C: That’s quite a disparity. Let’s start with some positives. Mark, what would you say Trump got right?

M: He extended the tax cuts, which was extremely important. He’s also trying to deregulate business, although he doesn’t seem to know how to do it. The Musk cuts only made the program look bad; they didn’t save much money or cut permitting times.

C: Sebastian, what about you?

S: Almost everything has gone according to plan. Trump is sticking it to the people we hate. He’s cutting the elites down to size, getting rid of systemic wokeness, and creating a level playing field for white Christians. He said he would do it, and he has. Mission accomplished.

C: What has he done wrong?

M: Apart from the tax cuts, almost everything. The tariffs–particularly the day-to-day uncertainty about them–are making it very difficult to do business. I can’t make any decisions about employment and investment until I know what the program is. The mass deportations, while they don’t impact me directly, are also bad for business. The BBB is blowing up the debt. The attacks on the Fed are scary. It’s hard to see many reasons for optimism here.

S: Of course you would say that. You’re a RINO.

C: Well, what would you say Trump got wrong?

S: The Iran attack was ok, but only as a one-off thing. I don’t want to get involved in wars in the Middle East. Selling weapons to Ukraine is inconsistent with America First. And now we have the Epstein thing. I’m not happy about that. The left-wing perverts and evil-doers need to be exposed, once and for all.

C: I assume you’re glad that Musk is gone?

S: Absolutely! I never trusted the guy, or any of his tech buddies. Trump used him to get the deep state under control and then got rid of him. That’s exactly what I wanted.

C: Inflation has ticked up again, largely due to the tariffs. How do you feel about that?

M: Awful. And it’s going to get a lot worse if Trump follows through with his letters.

S: I trust Trump. He says foreigners will pay the tariffs, so that’s what will happen.

M: Only an economic illiterate would say that. Tariffs are a tax on consumption ultimately paid by American consumers.

C: I think that’s enough for today.

To Trump, the truth of a statement depends solely on its usefulness to him. Spreading and amplifying ridiculous conspiracy theories during a campaign keeps the base happy and loyal, so why not? As president, however, he has to take responsibility for them; after all, he has the power and the resources to expose the “truth,” as the base sees it.

The problem, of course, is that the “truth” has no basis in reality. What happens when Trump subsequently admits that the narrative he espoused was a lie that has outlived its usefulness?

A large part of the base clings to the narrative, of course. That is what is happening with Epstein, and it is a major problem for the president.

Trump has officially announced his intention to permit the Euros to buy American weapons and sell them to Ukraine. Give the man credit for squaring the circle; he can tell the base that he made a hardheaded business deal that makes America money, while providing the Ukrainians with at least some of the weapons they desperately need.

Nothing Trump says has a long shelf life, so you shouldn’t take his continuing support for this program for granted. In the meantime, he is also threatening the Russians with huge tariffs if they don’t make peace in 50 days. One doubts Putin is tariff-ied by the threat; Russia doesn’t really sell anything to us except a small quantity of vodka, which can be purchased easily from other sources.

Both the mainstream right and left would agree that we are in a tech race with China we can’t afford to lose. And yet, Trump and the GOP Congress are defunding science programs that represent our hope for the future. It sounds insane. What is going on here?

Science is forward-looking, skeptical of the conventional wisdom, and driven by intellectual elites. MAGA is faith-based, reactionary, authoritarian, and deeply skeptical of elites. What could go wrong?

The answer to the question, therefore, is yes, even if the programs have nothing to do with DEI. When the Chinese attack us with space lasers, we will have the Bible to protect us.