Category: Uncategorized

It appears that Hamas is about to get what it wanted–a ground invasion of Gaza. It will result in the loss of multiple thousands of lives, and even more misery. The point of the attack was to generate images of forlorn Palestinians in order to provoke the anger of Arab leaders, most prominently MBS and King Salman.

Did the Palestinians who are about to suffer as a result of this plan buy into it? Were they even consulted? Did they all decide that martyrdom was the way to go?

Of course not. Using your own people as props is despicable.

Yesterday, I spent some of my day reading the transcript of a discussion between Masha Gessen, a trans person, and Lydia Polgreen, a black lesbian. Both are well=known reporters. It was an eyeful, to say the least.

Based in part on that transcript, and in part on my own analysis, I have come to the conclusion that there are three positions on gender fluidity, as follows:

1. CONSERVATIVE/CONTAGION: This position is based on three powerful sources of authority: scripture; historical practices; and natural law. It holds that gender fluidity is not just wrong, but evil, and an attack on society as a whole. Individuals holding this view consequently believe it is totally appropriate for the state to legislate against it, and even against talking about it.

The basis for the current round of right-wing statutes is “contagion.” You will observe fairly quickly that this concept sounds a lot like heresy in the Middle Ages. If you hold these beliefs, you have nothing to offer LGBTQ people except contempt and pain. The bottom line is that LGBTQ people, even if they exhibit all of the characteristics of gender fluidity, have to take one for the team to make America godly again. If they are driven to suicide by the lack of treatment and support, oh well.

2. LIBERTARIAN/COMPASSION: The middle group agrees with a lot of what the first group has to say, but sees no reason for the state to intervene to solve a largely non-existent problem. After all, trans people represent a tiny percentage of the population, and some of them are clearly hurting; why not permit them to get the treatment they need? Trans people don’t damage my ability to live my life as I see fit, so why should I stop them from transitioning? However, if you can prove that society is actually being harmed by trans people in some objective way, I’m open to regulation on those points.

3. TRANS MILITANTS: This group thinks gender fluidity is completely natural, that it is society (not biology) that made binary gender normal, and that transitioning is a joyful experience that should be encouraged, not discouraged; it’s just another form of the pursuit of happiness. Unlike the second group, this group does not simply tolerate transitioning as an unfortunate necessity for a handful of disturbed people; it embraces it as a social good. Anyone who believes otherwise is just a bigot, and should be shamed on social media. This means the militant group is constantly at war with the second group.

The bottom line here is that the third group makes up a microscopic percentage of America, and cannot survive politically without the assistance of the middle group, which is much larger. If they don’t want to be driven back into the closet by the conservatives, they need to cool their jets for the foreseeable future.

You have probably seen film–either documentary or fiction–of prison takeovers by the inmates. That, on a grand scale, is what is happening in Gaza. The warden and the guards have been taken hostage, but the authorities are in control of the outside of the prison.

Israel’s objectives at this point are as follows, in no particular order:

1. Regime change in Gaza;
2. The safe return of the hostages;
3. Minimize casualties; and
4. Avoid the fallout from massive numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza.

The current aerial campaign, by itself, only accomplishes #3. A land invasion only accomplishes #1. Is there a better alternative?

Yes–do what the authorities do in the prison films. The Israelis, with some help from the Egyptians, have the ability to strictly enforce the new blockade of Gaza. When conditions there get desperate enough, the population will take care of the situation.

To engage in an act of mass terrorism by indiscriminating killing hundreds of helpless Israeli civilians at close range is appalling enough. But to unapologetically kill scores of people of other nationalities in the same manner takes it to another moral plane. And holding foreigners as hostages takes the cake. That is likely to become the main story as the drama unfolds. Gaza is now effectively a crime scene, not an outdoor prison.

Will King Salman and MBS be impressed by this act of unrefined brutality by an ideological group that they already despised? Don’t bet on it. It’s going to take a whole lot of scenes showing dead Palestinian civilians to make them turn away from their negotiations with the Israelis.

The election of the new Speaker really revolves more around styles of governance than personalities, given the current composition of the House. The choices are as follows:

1. MCCARTHY, PART DEUX: Provide lots of meaningless raw meat to the right, make innumerable promises to both sides that you know you can’t keep, and ultimately rely on the Democrats to keep the government running. You don’t actually have to be McCarthy to use these tactics. It works for awhile, until everyone figures it out.
2. A GENUINE BIPARTISAN MODERATE COALITION: Moderates of both parties combine to pick a fairly rational Republican.
3. THE MODERATES SURRENDER: One of the two current candidates ultimately persuades the moderates that they have an overriding obligation to serve as lobby fodder for the far right, even if it means putting their seats at risk, in order to preserve party unity and stick it to the left.

The least likely alternative, alas, is #2. The most likely choice is #1.

The Republican Party wants power, but has no interest in governing; it is the Permanent Opposition Party, not the Grand Old Party. It has no ideas, only prejudices. It exists purely to stop the left. Why did this happen?

Because the one policy it has–tax cuts for wealthy businessmen–is unpopular and hasn’t worked in decades. As a result, its only function is to provide a mouthpiece for angry and resentful white Christians. That’s it.

The GOP House members from swing districts historically have rolled over for the extremists in the name of party unity even though the Freedom Caucus is effectively its own party with its own separate nihilistic agenda. The removal of McCarthy seems to have aroused some strong feelings, however, and the outcome of the election of a new Speaker is very much in doubt. Could this be the time the moderates actually stand up and insist on their right to control the party? Will they use the threat of cooperation with moderate Democrats to bend the extremists to their will?

I don’t know about you, but I’m not holding my breath. My guess is that they would rather put their own seats at risk in a general election than arouse the wrath of Fox News, Trump, and the far right.

By any reasonable metric, Israel is an overwhelming success. The tiny nation dominates the Middle East both economically and militarily. And to whom does it owe its success? The establishment, which has governed it up until recently, fights its wars, makes its money, and pays its taxes.

The current government, on the other hand, consists of a bunch of incompetent right-wing populist bozos who think they can do anything they want for their ideological constituency without putting the country at risk. Its leader is a man who consistently puts his own welfare and his desire for power ahead of the national interest. If he hadn’t been distracted by his own petty concerns, the disaster of the last few days would never have occurred. It’s time to stop the rot!

That will be the opposition narrative after the brief moment of unity caused by the war comes to an end. There will be a lot of truth to it, too. Will the shock of the day be enough to cause a revolution in Israeli politics? And has the American public seen what happens when right-wing populists are given the keys to the car in a dangerous neighborhood?

We’ll see.

Historically, the Conservative Party has been, well, conservative: it resists rapid change; reacts to problems in a flexible and non-ideological way; and emphasizes deference, property rights, competence, and traditional values. But Brexit and Boris Johnson took the party in a completely different, populist direction; this resulted in a smashing electoral success, but shambolic government driven by leaders with more interest in performance than results. This was followed by the extremely brief, classical liberal, Liz Truss era. Where does Sunak fit in this picture?

Sunak is a return to standard conservatism. He is about as far from a populist as he can get. His problem is that the condition of the UK is considerably less than great, which means he is effectively obligated to run against Johnson and Truss, his Tory predecessors. Can that possibly work? Will he be given credit by the electorate for being a change candidate when the baseline is his own party, which he supported loyally at the time?

Don’t hold your breath.

Unlike the Egyptians in 1973, Hamas doesn’t have the ability to free Gaza, or to take and hold territory; it can only kill and take hostages. The timing of the attacks was clearly tied to the ongoing negotiations between the Israelis and the Saudis; in other words, the audience for this drama consists primarily of one man–King Salman. What happens next? Are the negotiations necessarily dead?

It depends on the scale and effectiveness of the Israeli response. If the Israelis quietly grind down the militants without causing widespread civilian casualties, the Saudis will probably see the attack as an unsuccessful attempted provocation and continue with the negotiations. If the Israelis either look weak or fill televisions all over the world with images of slaughtered civilians in order to satisfy outraged public opinion at home, that will be a different matter. I make no predictions either way.

Kevin McCarthy zigged and zagged; he attacked Trump, and then embraced him; he made promises he knew he couldn’t keep, and then unashamedly broke them. Nobody on either side of the aisle trusted him. When he offered the Democrats nothing in return for their support, they cut him loose. But what now?

The next Speaker will have the same dilemma that McCarthy did; the GOP doesn’t really have a majority in the House, just as the Democrats don’t really have a majority in the Senate. The Freedom Caucus is effectively an unreliable partner in a right-wing coalition that exists only to keep the left out of power and its members on TV. The GOP cannot govern with the extremists, but it cannot keep the left out without them. It loses either way. So what happens next?

The best possible outcome for America is a bipartisan coalition involving moderates of both parties. The much more likely outcome is a GOP Speaker who uses the same tactics as McCarthy to try to keep both the endangered moderates and the extremists united. If that happens, things will only get worse.

WE ARE THE VICTIMS

We are the victims, my friend.

And we’ll keep on fighting till the end.

We are the victims!

We are the victims!

No time for liberals

‘Cause we are the victims

Of the woke.

______________

Parody of “We Are the Champions” by Queen.

Having correctly seen that the only way to avoid a shutdown was a bipartisan CR, McCarthy introduced one this afternoon. It passed solely due to Democratic votes. Ukraine money was excluded from the bill in a sop to the Freedom Caucus. McCarthy will undoubtedly argue to them that he accomplished one of their primary objectives, so they should hold off on a motion to vacate. It is highly unlikely that they will acquiesce this time.

What we have in the House is a situation where the right-wing rabble rules 99 percent of the time, but a bipartisan coalition excluding the extremists prevails when it really matters. Should the Democrats continue to tolerate this state of affairs, particularly when they know that McCarthy is desperate to keep the gavel?

No. It’s time to make some demands. If McCarthy is going to remain Speaker with Democratic votes, the blue team deserves something important from him in return. An end to the impeachment inquiry, which is only making the red team look stupid in any event, would be a logical place to start.

It isn’t really directed at McCarthy, although for Matt Gaetz, it might be. It isn’t really about spending cuts, either. There was no concerted effort to cut spending during the Trump years.

No, this is about the mouthpieces for the reactionary base attempting to impose their will on the rest of the GOP, the Senate, Joe Biden, and the American people. They may represent a small fraction of the electorate, but they think they speak for “real America,” and for them, that’s all of the justification they need.

Trump never makes any effort to attract anyone outside of the base, and it works for him, at least within the boundaries of the GOP. Why wouldn’t his most devoted disciples do the same thing?

A note to my readers: I will be on vacation next week. Regular posts will resume the following week.

Ross Douthat observes that wealthy Americans, by and large, have stable marriages and wonders why working and middle-class people don’t. Can we help him out here?

First, let’s put this in historical perspective. Back in the day, the marriage contract was a bargain in which the man worked for wages and provided economic stability, while the woman did the work around the house and took care of the family. While this state of affairs could seem oppressive at times, the bargain was reasonably equal, and made sense.

Fast forward to today. Consider the position of two hypothetical characters, Jim and Anne. Jim has a blue collar job that pays him about $30,000 a year; Anne is a teacher making $40,000 a year. The two can save on some expenses by getting married and living together, but Anne will have to serve both as the primary breadwinner and the person doing most of the housework. If you were Anne, is that a bargain you would make, particularly if Jim’s employment is insecure?

Probably not. The bottom line is that this problem is being driven both by the evolution of the knowledge-based economy and a cultural issue regarding work around the house.