Author: hamilton1788

October 7 was a huge tactical victory for Hamas. In the longer run, however, it was a disaster; Israel responded with far more force than expected, and neither Iran nor Hezbollah did much to help. Gaza is now little but a pile of rubble. The tactical victory turned into a strategic calamity.

The Israelis, for their part, have pulverized Gaza, but have no plausible plan for its future. They have alienated public opinion all over the world, including the United States, by using disproportionate force and showing little concern for the fate of civilians. The likelihood of an agreement with moderate Arab nations has gone down dramatically. In time, barring the complete ethnic cleansing episode that the far right dreams about, the angry population will rise again against Israel. Once again, a tactical victory may well prove to be a strategic defeat.

The Israeli campaign in Lebanon has been both a tactical and a strategic victory because the Israeli government, for once, knew when to stop. The attack on Iran has also been a tactical victory, but Iran’s nuclear capability has not been “obliterated,” to use Trump’s word, and the government’s determination to rebuild it is undiminished. In addition, Iranian public opinion has rallied around the government. In the end, this campaign, like the one in Gaza, will probably prove to be a strategic failure.

Trump clearly believes that open displays of cruelty are necessary to deter illegal immigration. Why not take that belief to its logical conclusion? Why not crucify illegal immigrants at the border as a message to the rest of the world?

Hey, it worked for the Romans after the Spartacus Rebellion, and an influential element of the GOP admires Roman civilization. In addition, the Christian right would love it, for reasons that require no explanation.

A Republican member of Congress–unfortunately, I can’t remember which one–recently argued that unaligned countries should accept American leadership on trade because we, unlike the Chinese, don’t have concentration camps. In a related story, the Florida GOP is raising money by selling t-shirts celebrating the opening of Alligator Alcatraz.

I guess he missed that one.

In an interview with Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens once again argues that the Israelis were justified in killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza because the Allies did the same thing in the process of defeating Nazi Germany. Is the analogy sound?

No, for three reasons. First, the Allies didn’t have 21st century precision weapons. Second, Hitler and the Nazi regime mobilized the entire population of Germany to fight the war; in Gaza, Hamas made no such effort and simply hid among the civilians. Third, Nazi Germany had enough firepower to take and hold most of Europe. The military capacity of Hamas, even on its best days, was never any match for Israel’s.

TR called his program the “Square Deal.” FDR’s was named the “New Deal.” Harry Truman wanted a “Fair Deal.” In light of his performance in office, particularly (but not exclusively) in the field of international trade, what should historians call the Trump agenda?

That’s right–the “No Deal.”

Donald Trump always has to be the center of attention. He constantly reminds us that he’s the boss. But, even now, he also likes to position himself as an outsider in his own administration. He recently indicated that he had no idea who paused the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, and he suggested that, if he had been in charge, DOGE would have been run somewhat differently. Just being the president and Elon Musk’s best buddy clearly wasn’t enough authority for him to take responsibility for DOGE.

In maritime law, the captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship. In Trump’s administration, the opposite is true; the point of having underlings is to have them take the blame for anything that goes wrong. In other words, the king can do no wrong.

Donald Trump is busy handing out huge tariffs to our trading partners in Asia. In the meantime, Marco Rubio is attempting to strengthen our security ties with them. Now that’s a tough job!

Trump clearly believes he can bully nations all over the world into accepting our leadership. The idea that they might decide to ally themselves with China instead appears not to have occurred to him. The analogy to Kaiser Wilhelm II and his “diplomacy” becomes more compelling every day.

Rubio’s problems, however, are nothing compared to those of the Secretary of Agriculture, who must concurrently assure the base that illegal immigrant farmworkers are going to Alligator Alcatraz and promise Trump-friendly farmers that those same workers are safe from deportation. Expect lots of bobbing and weaving from the administration–loud blustering followed by quiet inaction.

Trump is now threatening the Brazilian government with a 50 percent tariff if it doesn’t back off the Bolsonaro prosecution. Lula refused the demand and promised retaliation if the new tariff goes into effect. Should we be surprised?

I predicted this in late May. The problem, of course, is that Trump views himself as the unquestioned boss of the Western Hemisphere, and he won’t tolerate backtalk. Brazil, for its part, is a large country with extensive commercial ties with China; it has options if it loses access to the American market. Look for this situation to escalate quickly into something really ugly. I won’t be shocked if there is serious talk of military action.

For a variety of reasons, including globalization, demographic change, and slow growth, inflation and interest rates were extremely low between 2008 and 2021. The Democrats could consequently contemplate dramatic expansions to the welfare state and corresponding increases in the deficit without worrying much about the bond market.

Times have changed. As a result, any progressive running in 2028 will have to deal in tradeoffs. If the Democrats want to overthrow the dollar store economy in the foreseeable future, they will have to propose large tax increases, and not just for the extremely wealthy, to make their plans credible.

If I had to guess today, I would say that won’t happen. The intellectual battle between the center and the left in 2028 will pit plans for very small changes to the welfare state, accompanied by tax increases solely on plutocrats, against sweeping progressive proposals which dishonestly assume the plutocrats can pay for everything. Tax increases on the middle class will just be too much for the electorate to swallow.

As I’ve noted many times before, Biden’s ambitious plans to defeat the dollar store economy were defeated by inflation, rising interest rates, and a lack of votes in the Senate. The public noticed and was displeased. As a result, Biden couldn’t run on his record, and he couldn’t provide a plausible narrative of change, either. Harris inherited the same problem; in the end, her only persuasive argument was about Trump’s failings. It wasn’t enough.

J.D. Vance purports to be a populist, and may even mean it, but the populist elements of the BBB are only a tiny fraction of the total. Like Harris, he will be stuck running on its results in 2028. Fear of the base will prevent him from putting any distance between himself and Trump. If the public decides the Trump economy is a loser, he will pay the price for it; he will have nowhere else to go.

Elon Musk is threatening to create and finance a third party. In essence, he is proposing to lead the CL faction out of the GOP. There would be plenty of open ideological space for his movement: free trade; entitlement cuts; deregulation; large subsidies for scientific research and emerging technologies, including clean energy; and changes to the immigration system favoring the wealthy and talented. Unlike the GOP, it would focus on creating an economy for the future, not the past. Could it work?

A few observations are pertinent here. First of all, there are very few living and breathing CL voters out there, so any attempt to create a mass movement would undoubtedly fail, no matter how well it was financed, in the absence of a genuine national emergency calling for immediate and drastic action. If Musk actually acts on his threats, he is likely to become even further disillusioned with liberal democracy. Second, the big loser in this would be J.D. Vance, whose political identity is tied in with his ability to bridge the gap between techno-aristocrats and reactionary voters. Finally, the party would at least have an easily recognizable animal symbol. TR had a bull moose; the Musk party would have, well, a muskrat!

The CL and PBP factions of the GOP are desperate to cut Social Security and Medicare. Why? In order to reduce the deficit and, therefore, the cost of money in future years; in addition, entitlement cuts will drive the elderly poor back into the workforce, where they will be needed by right-leaning businessmen after the mass deportations.

But tens of millions of Reactionaries, to say nothing of independent swing voters, will resist entitlement cuts furiously. Not all of them can be mollified with culture war victories. The GOP needs a strategy which requires the Democrats to take the blame for the cuts. How can that be done?

There are two parts to the approach. First, decline to talk about entitlements until the crisis is truly imminent. Say you will never vote to cut Social Security and leave it at that; don’t talk about solutions to the deficit problem, because they will create deep divisions in the party. Second, when the crisis is finally here, refuse to raise taxes, and say the fiscal hole must be filled by spending cuts in social programs for younger people that are near and dear to the hearts of left-leaning voters. That way, you have a plausible argument that it is the Democrats who are responsible for the impoverishment of the elderly, not you. Social Security consequently becomes a wedge issue for the left, not the right.

This is a typical GOP hostage-taking tactic. How does the blue team deal with it? By talking up the funding crisis well before it occurs, offering a solution that involves raising taxes on the wealthy, and exposing the cynical GOP strategy as soon as possible. The voters at this point don’t believe that Republicans will vote for cuts, so change the question and force them to talk about their ideas to fill in the hole.

What do mass shootings and deaths from extreme weather events have in common? The GOP embraces policies which make them inevitable and then pretends nothing can be done to prevent them.

These are choices our country has made. Whether we implicitly agree to accept unnecessary deaths as tolerable collateral damage is, therefore, a legitimate political issue. Don’t let the right persuade you otherwise.

Life in the time of Trump.

The BBB just passed.

For Trump, it’s just another win

But Musk says he’s aghast.

The wealthy won, as you’d expect;

Clean energy just lost.

The Texas flood’s reminding us

Just how much it will cost.

There was a time not so long ago when the GOP response to the blue team’s clean energy initiatives was to support energy of all kinds in the name of growth and economic independence. Today, based on the votes for the BBB, the mainstream Republican position is that clean energy is positively harmful to America. Since the reality of climate change is evident every day, clean energy provides lots of jobs, and Trump’s espoused objective is energy dominance, this sounds insane. What is going on here?

Several things. First of all, the party considers itself bound by Trump’s idiosyncratic prejudices about the evils of wind power and the need for jobs for big burly men. Second, peddling nostalgia about coal mining jobs helps the GOP win elections in several states. Third, clean energy is inextricably entwined with the issue of climate change, and the right understands there is no free market solution to the climate problem, so it makes sense at an ideological level for the GOP to deny the problem and reject the solution. Fourth, Republican politicians get lots of campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. That isn’t the decisive factor, but it matters. Finally, there is a school of thought to the effect that we are hopelessly behind the Chinese in the clean energy field, so it is better to focus on the dirty kind, where we currently have a cost advantage.

What will we lose as a result? We will be diplomatically and economically isolated. We will have more deaths and property damage from extreme weather events. We will lose countless clean energy jobs in the short run and cheap and plentiful energy sources in the longer run. From a policy perspective, this is a disaster.