Category: Uncategorized

Every once in a great while, Donald Trump will make a small effort to appease moderate opinion–most notably, on abortion. After all, you can win an election deliberately offending 45 percent of the population, but not 80 percent. That limited exception aside, however, Trump’s modus operandi is to throw red meat to his base and ignore everyone else. It goes against the grain, but he thinks driving up extremist turnout is how to win elections.

Joe Biden’s approach is completely different. He thinks general elections are won by appealing to centrist swing voters. That is what makes groups such as No Labels so ridiculous–he is already doing everything they want him to do. The danger here is that the blue base will be so disgruntled that it will refuse to show up in November.

Who is right? We’ll find out next year.

What Putin says about the rationale for the war seems to depend on his level of optimism about its outcome. In the earliest stages, he was talking about Grand Duke Vladimir and how Ukraine didn’t have a right to exist as a separate nation. He then moved to “denazification” and “demilitarization,” which can only mean regime change in the entirety of Ukraine. But when the war started to get away from Putin, he began to insist that it was the Ukrainians, not him, who refused to talk peace on the basis of existing conditions on the ground.

At his press conference a day or two ago, Putin was back talking about “denazification” and “demilitarization” again. That means he’s more confident about winning a total victory. For that, he can thank Trump and the GOP.

Ron DeSantis and his fellow Florida reactionaries argue that excluding books on race and gender that offend reactionary voters from public libraries does not constitute a “book ban” because the books can still be purchased within the state. Are they right?

No, because plenty of Floridians can’t afford to buy books. Their only access to books comes from public libraries. It is perfectly fair to call this a “book ban.”

The large social media companies–all of them privately owned–have consistently asserted a right to take down posts they consider to be self-evidently false and dangerous to the public interest. They view this as a form of “editing” that is clearly protected by the First Amendment. Some states dominated by the GOP, however, disagree. Their governments argue that the “editing” is actually “censorship” and that the private companies provide public spaces in which all opinions must be welcomed. It will be up to the Supreme Court to determine which side is right.

On issues involving right-wing book bans in public facilities, however, Florida has taken a completely different view. Attorneys representing state and local governments have argued that government has a right to discriminate against views it dislikes, because that form of editing in public facilities is “government speech.” In other words, the government has the First Amendment right to edit on the basis of content, but private companies do not.

To the extent you can call this “logic,” it turns the First Amendment, which only applies to government action, on its head. That isn’t just incredibly hypocritical–it’s extremely dangerous. It isn’t an exaggeration to say that free speech in America is on the line in these cases. Our system will survive if the Supreme Court rules incorrectly that “editing” by private companies is “censorship,” but a decision stating that the government has the right to limit speech in actual public spaces on the basis of content would have a huge negative impact on the fate of liberal democracy in America.

The GOP case against Biden consists primarily of inflation, crime, and the border. How should he respond?

Here are some suggestions:

1. INFLATION: Inflation was a worldwide phenomenon (even in Japan!) that resulted from the dislocations caused by the pandemic. With time, it has fallen back close to normal levels. Wage increases have outstripped inflation for about a year now. Most of the kinds of inflation that people particularly complain about, such as housing, had nothing to do with federal government policy and cannot be fixed by Biden or any other president.
2. CRIME: Crime levels are still historically low. They started rising during the Trump presidency but have since started to fall. In any event, the president–notwithstanding Trump and his Batman routine–has very little power over a local problem.
3. THE BORDER: Biden has only the resources and the law provided to him by Congress. He makes no apologies for trying to treat asylum seekers in a reasonably humane manner. Even at that, he has been attacked by the left for being too tough on migrants, and some federal judges have agreed with them.

It is a compelling case. Will the public listen, when the alternative becomes clear? We’ll see next year.

If you accept the right-wing analogy tying abortion to slavery, we have reached the stage of “popular sovereignty”–state regulation. That has resulted in a kind of equilibrium: red states without a referendum process have banned abortion; red states with referenda have permitted it; and blue states have strengthened abortion rights. Is upholding the status quo a viable and sustainable position for GOP candidates?

No, for two reasons. First of all, the GOP is driven by its extreme right wing, even though some reactionaries, for reasons I have explained in previous posts, are prepared to be pragmatic on this issue. Second, “popular sovereignty” is likely to run aground over the issue of extraterritoriality. It hasn’t come to the fore yet, but it will fairly soon. Then what happens?

We won’t have “bleeding Kansas,” but it sure won’t be pretty.

Both the growth and the inflation figures are extremely positive, even though both the right and the left still insist the economy sucks (more on the latter in a future post). Unimaginative commentators are giving the credit to the Fed. Should they?

The Fed didn’t fix the supply chain problems, or nudge consumers back to more normal spending patterns after the end of the pandemic. It didn’t even cause the price of housing to decline, as interest rate increases resulted in a reduction of homes on the market. The most you can say for the Fed is that it has managed the expectations game properly, and it did the obvious thing in raising rates when real rates were negative due to the dislocations caused by the virus. On balance, there is little reason to give the Fed much credit here.

The best answer to the credit question is “nobody and everybody,” but Biden and the Democrats are actually entitled to some recognition here. Yes, the pandemic relief bill was somewhat inflationary, but the excess savings provided a cushion from the negative impacts of the interest rate increase. In other words, we might well have had the recession that was predicted over and over again (but not by me) but for those savings, which, along with high asset prices, are still fueling the economy today.

Ken Paxton probably thinks America is just like Texas. It’s not. Kate Cox was an ideal plaintiff, from the blue team’s perspective; Paxton’s decision to take her on, and the decision of the Texas Supreme Court to deny her an abortion, are going to resonate with women all over the country, and not in a good way for the GOP.

Trump, having supported Paxton to the hilt during the latter’s impeachment episode, is in no position to disavow his views. Biden is going to make him wear this around his neck during the 2024 campaign.

Joe Biden probably can’t do much at this point to address the “bad vibe” economy, but Jerome Powell can. Will he?

Powell was appointed by Donald Trump, but Trump did nothing but make his life miserable through 2020, so he has every personal incentive to keep the economy humming through next November. In addition, the Fed’s independence would be very much on the table during a new Trump Administration. On the other hand, Powell clearly feels strongly about maintaining the Fed’s credibility on inflation, which suggests that interest rate cuts over the next few months are a bad bet.

If the inflation numbers align with the political incentives around, say, April, I think we will see some rate cuts; that would be an easy decision. If the inflation numbers are disappointing, however, I think the Fed will put more weight on protecting its credibility and just hope against hope that the voters see reason in November.

Gaza will essentially be an enormous pile of rubble when the war is over. The Palestinians will be living in unspeakable misery. There will be no food, fuel, shelter, jobs, or sanitary facilities for the civilian population. Who is going to fix this problem?

Two possibilities can be dismissed immediately. First, the Egyptians are not going to permit the Palestinians to be moved to a new refugee camp in their territory. Second, the Israeli government will be in no position to fix the damage it is so busy creating. As usual, it will be demanding aid from the international community.

So who will fill the gap? The US and the EU will refuse to pony up unless the Israeli government makes a really serious effort to resolve the underlying political problem with the Palestinians. This is where Biden can really use his leverage with the Israelis. Most of the Arab states will react the same way. The Chinese don’t believe in charity, so they won’t help in any meaningful way. Qatar and Iran, both of whom have good relations with Hamas, will try to funnel in some aid, but the scope of the damage is way too great for them to handle. International organizations largely funded by the US and the EU won’t have enough money to solve the problem, either.

The current Israeli government has no interest in engaging in any serious talks about Palestinian rights. That means one of two things is going to happen: either the government is replaced by a new centrist one that is willing to engage in serious negotiations over a two-state solution in exchange for economic assistance; or the international response will be much too little, too late, and the misery will persist for the foreseeable future.

I would put my money on B.

Nikki Haley, like many politicians, wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, she has made it clear that she personally opposes abortion and will sign basically any federal prohibition that ends up on her desk after she is elected president. On the other hand, she wants pro-choice women to know she feels their pain, and she has opined that federal legislation is impossible, due to the filibuster. Something for everyone, it seems.

But she hasn’t been asked the real questions, which are as follows:

1. If you are elected president, how vigorously, if at all, will you support attempts by the reactionary right to repeal the filibuster?
2. If the filibuster problem can be overcome, how do you propose to enforce anti-abortion legislation in blue states in which the population strongly supports abortion rights? In other words, how will you avoid turning the new legislation into the 21st century equivalent of Prohibition or the Fugitive Slave Act?

I would love to hear the answers to those questions, but I doubt I ever will.

In its never-ending battle to persuade us that neoliberal economics are, in fact, good for working people, the last issue of The Economist featured a leader and an article telling us that inequality never actually rose that much and is currently falling. The justifications for these statements are rising real wages for unskilled workers over the last few years and a few new, hotly disputed studies which allegedly establish that inequality has barely increased “since the 1960s.” Should we accept these arguments?

The two propositions should be taken separately. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence that the combination of demographic change and a hot American economy has helped unskilled workers and reduced inequality–not that Biden is being given any credit for it. The demographic change is here to stay but will matter only if the pace of globalization remains slow; after all, there are still plenty of underemployed people in Asia and Africa to pick up the slack. In addition, AI may wind up reducing the demand for labor; we just don’t know. Finally, fiscal problems may ultimately result in an economic slowdown and lower real wages for workers. The Economist should take that possibility seriously, since it has been predicting a recession for most of Biden’s term.

As to the studies, they aren’t quoted at length, but as far as I can tell, they have the following flaws:

1. Using “the 1960s” as a baseline presents a problem for two reasons. First of all, I can’t tell if that means before or after the approval Great Society programs; second, the relevant date for lovers of neoliberalism is 1980, not 1960. The Reagan era is when inequality really took off, thanks to the tax cuts.
2. As I’ve noted before, it appears that the authors of the studies are including transfer payments in government health care programs in their analysis, which essentially makes soaring American health care costs an economic plus for workers rather than a painful offset. That’s stupid.
3. The studies clearly focus on incomes, not wealth. We all know that rising asset prices are primarily responsible for the increase in inequality. A genuine, unbiased review of the inequality issue would take net worth as well as realized income into account.

Imagine that you are LIndsey Graham, and you have to choose a GOP candidate for president. Your options are a woman from your home state who agrees with everything you say about American foreign policy, and a guy who wants to leave Ukraine to its fate and withdraw from NATO. You, of course, choose the guy who stands for everything you disagree with. It’s pathetic.

You believe strongly that Ukraine should be protected from Russian imperialism. But when your party tells you that the border is more important and should be traded for aid to Ukraine, you go along without a peep. That’s pathetic, too.

Graham was recently quoted as saying Trump won’t really withdraw from NATO; he’s just using the threat as leverage to force the Europeans to spend more money on defense. Sure, Lindsey. Telling the world you’re just bluffing doesn’t sound like a great negotiating tactic to me, particularly since the Europeans are, in fact, spending more money on defense.

If Trump is elected, he will abandon both Ukraine and NATO, and Graham won’t do a damn thing to stop him. He’ll say a few things in private, and then shut up, just as he always does, because he wants to play golf with the man on golf cart. That’s what is really important to him.

The GOP, seeing the opportunity to split liberals from progressives, is currently ignoring its own issues with antisemitism (remember the “good people” in Charlottesville?) and defining the term in a way that operates to its advantage. But what is its real meaning?

Let’s start with some relatively easy real world examples. Criticizing the Israeli government for specific kinds of behavior towards Palestinians is not antisemitism, because if it were, millions of Israelis would be considered antisemitic. On the other hand, making disparaging remarks about all Jews, regardless of context, clearly is antisemitic. That is the category into which right-wing antisemites fall.

The following actions are harder cases:

1. Taking the position that the Jewish state should be replaced by a democratic state in which Jews and Palestinians have equal rights;
2. Making unequivocal statements that Israel should be destroyed, but saying nothing about Jews elsewhere; and
3. Making more equivocal statements that could be understood by reasonable listeners to call for the destruction of Israel.

To me, any statement that puts Jews and Arabs on equal footing is acceptable, so #1 is not antisemitism even if it contemplates a radical change to Israel, as it currently exists. #2 singles out Israeli Jews for ethnic cleansing and is thus antisemitic. #3 depends on context, but most people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t have a record of clearly calling for the destruction of Israel, it should be assumed that you only want a much better deal for the Palestinians.

As to the behavior of progressive students on Ivy League campuses, the distinction between harassment and pure speech is the bright line for me. Some right-wing commentators have argued that left-wing intimidation of reactionary students on issues pertaining to race and gender should be treated the same way. On this point, I agree with them. People with unpopular views, whether left or right, should be protected from intimidation, but not from criticism.

In the same column that was the subject of my last post, David French tells us that Mike Huckabee, in response to a question about DeSantis and Trump, opined that there are two virtues–loyalty and confidentiality–and that a virtuous person faithfully follows his leader and shuts up.

That’s what right-wing religion has come to in this country. This is an ethical system fit for the Mafia, not for Christians.