On the Juneteenth Holiday

If you have to explain the origins of a holiday to the average person, it probably shouldn’t be one. So it is with Juneteenth.

If the point is to celebrate the end of the Civil War, it would make sense to turn the day of Lee’s surrender into a holiday. If the objective is to commemorate the end of slavery, pick the date the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, or the ratification date for the Thirteenth Amendment. If you think we need a second day (in addition to MLK Day) to talk about equal rights and racism, the logical day to celebrate is the date the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. I could support any of those. But the practical significance of Juneteenth is close to zero. As a holiday, it belongs in the dustbin of history.

On a New Biden Agenda: Taxes and Spending

Given the likelihood of a GOP majority in one or both houses of Congress, you might think taxes would be off the table in a second Biden term. You would be wrong.

The Trump individual tax cuts expire in 2025. The GOP will be desperate to keep them in place. That gives Biden leverage to push new safety net spending in exchange for meeting the GOP demands. History tells us he will use it.

The deficit scolds will complain. They will even be right. But that’s the way politics work in America today; choices that appear to be hard are actually impossible.

On a New Biden Agenda: Overview

Biden ran his primary campaign as a moderate and a conciliator. Due largely to the effects of the pandemic, he then ran against Trump as a radical reformer–a new FDR. While some of his progressive agenda squeaked through Congress, his ambitions to replace the dollar store economy with something more efficient and equitable failed due to the filibuster and the opposition of Manchin and Sinema. After the 2022 election, out of necessity, he gave up most of his ambitions and started engaging in Clinton-style triangulation. Call it the Spirit of ’96.

Since the playing field is tilted against the Democrats in 2024, it is very likely that Biden will face at least one, and more likely two, GOP majorities in Congress if he is re-elected. What would a second Biden term look like? What kind of an agenda will he have? I will be exploring the major themes in a series of posts over the next week.

On the Opposite of Woke

Millions of our most recent asylum seekers have come from countries with nasty left-wing regimes that DeSantis undoubtedly deplores. They are, by and large, looking for an opportunity to work, not a handout. They are predominantly Christian, and socially conservative. They despise socialism and know nothing of non-binary people. In short, they are the opposite of woke.

You would think DeSantis would welcome these people into our country, as they are his natural allies in the war on wokeness. Instead, he spends Florida taxpayer money flying them to California and Martha’s Vineyard. Why?

There are two possible answers–opportunism or racism. The two are not mutually exclusive. I lean more towards the former. Take your pick.

On Loyalty, Empathy, and Identity

For Donald Trump, loyalty and empathy are a one-way street; he demands all, but gives none. Why, then, do white Christians from rural areas identify so strongly with the thrice-married former casino owner from New York? Why, when he says he is their retribution (not just his), do they believe him?

I think there are two reasons. First, even though Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he genuinely resents the fact it wasn’t platinum. His fans appreciate and relate to that resentment. Second, while Trump may have some orthodox GOP views on substance, he never mutes himself, so it never appears that he is selling out to the establishment. That sets him apart from any of his competitors.

On Trump, DeSantis, and the McConnell Project

The McConnell Project is based on checks and balances and Republican advantages in the Electoral College. It maintains traditional constitutional norms, but uses the filibuster and the right-leaning Supreme Court to deny the left the ability to make significant policy changes while in office. It is a step towards illiberal democracy, but it is a long way from the ultimate destination, because it also puts limits on the right’s ability to legislate, and permits the left to win elections, albeit with some significant handicaps.

DeSantis, if elected president, won’t accept the McConnell Project, even if he tolerates the bare forms of American liberal democracy. He wants to make fundamental changes to American society that won’t be permitted by the filibuster or originalist judges. He will be howling for the abolition of the filibuster practically the minute he takes office.

Trump, of course, completely rejects the notion of checks and balances. He wants arbitrary power for himself as the tribune of the red people.

Is it any wonder McConnell won’t speak to Trump anymore?

The Old Deal or None

For decades, America had a relationship with both Israel and Saudi Arabia that was based on a quid pro quo. America provided security guarantees; Israel served as a shining example of liberal democracy; Saudi Arabia kept oil prices down; and both Middle East countries followed the American line on foreign policy issues. The relationships were hardly frictionless, but for the most part, they worked.

That was then, and this is now. The natives are getting restless. The Saudi government has worked with the Russians to keep oil prices higher than necessary, made its own deal with Iran, and is doing more business with China than before. The new Israeli government isn’t content to oppress the Palestinians; it wants to make life miserable for blue Israelis, as well. Neither country has provided us with any meaningful assistance on Ukraine. How should we respond?

Israel and Saudi Arabia are sovereign nations, so they have every right to declare independence from us if that is what they want. They are not, however, entitled to security guarantees from us under those conditions. It’s the old deal, or none.

On the Future of the Theocracy

Like me, The Economist believes the Iranian theocracy may not survive the death of the current Supreme Leader. A recent article suggests that the new government would be controlled by the Revolutionary Guards; in a gesture intended to mollify public opinion, it would be less rigid on issues such as the hijab than the theocracy. Is that a reasonable prediction?

Only in the short run. A government run by and for the Revolutionary Guards would have no legitimacy in anyone’s eyes, as it would be operated and justified solely by force. I suspect one of two things would happen; either the theocracy would be maintained on paper to preserve the fiction that the government is mandated by God, or the new dictatorship would crumble at the first sign of adversity, to be replaced, in all likelihood, by something more democratic.

The Fake Interview Series: DeSantis (1)

I’ve never interviewed Ron DeSantis, and it is highly unlikely that I ever will. If I did, however, it would go something like this:

C: I want to make it clear before we start this conversation that while I’m not woke, and I don’t work for the MSM, I don’t agree with most of what you say about wokeness or anything else. I’m not really here to argue with you, however. I want to help define what it is you believe in, and let the American people decide for themselves.

D: OK.

C: In our first conversation, I will be focusing on what wokeness is and how it operates. In subsequent discussions, I will ask questions about what you propose to do about wokeness at the federal level, and about mostly unrelated foreign policy and domestic issues.

D: Fine.

C: We’ll start with the obvious question. Donald Trump says most people don’t know what wokeness means. How do you define it?

D: Wokeness is a series of pernicious ideas held by the left that falsely identify straight white American Christians as bad people who should be forced to give up their freedom.

C: You sometimes call wokeness “cultural Marxism.” I think you would agree that nothing in your definition has anything to do with economic determinism, the class struggle, or dialectical materialism. Why do you continue to compare it to Marxism?

D: Marxism holds that groups of people are bound by history to fight each other, and that a government takeover by the largest group is necessary to prevent oppression. In Marxism, the groups are classes; in wokeness, they’re racial and gender groups. It’s basically the same thing.

C: Even though woke people don’t argue that straight white Christians are bound by some sort of natural law to be oppressors?

D: Yes. It’s the focus on groups fighting each other that matters. It prevents us from seeing all Americans as being Americans, period.

C: Is wokeness primarily a public or private sector phenomenon?

D: The ideas usually come from the private sector. The government abets them and sometimes enforces them.

C: Is Joe Biden woke?

D: Half the time, he isn’t even awake. So, no. But he runs a government that is avoiding its obligation to tear out wokeness by the roots, so he’s responsible for it. He’s in the way. He has to go.

C: You sound like a Jesuit doing battle in the Counter-Reformation.

D: Well, I am Catholic.

C: In keeping with that theme, is wokeness a kind of heresy?

D: It’s a national spiritual sickness. The country can’t be great again until it has been eliminated.

C: Do you hate woke people? By your definition, there are millions of them in this country. A lot of them vote.

D: I hate wokeness, not people. You know–love the sinner, hate the sin. The government needs to do everything in its power to eliminate the sin. Then we can move forward as a single healthy nation again.

C: Would you burn woke people at the stake?

D: We don’t have to go that far, but wokeness requires strong medicine. We need to make the consequences of being woke clear. First, we have to shut woke people up. Then we need to punish them by using the criminal law where possible, and by making them lose their jobs and their families. That will turn them around. You’ll see.

C: I’ll get back to that in our next conversation. Let me throw out some analysis for your reaction. I have identified four different threads of wokeness in my writings. I want you to react to the classification system.

D: Shoot.

C: First, there’s racial wokeness. According to you, I think, racial wokeness revolves around the notion of systemic racism. You would argue that it doesn’t exist, and that anyone who says it does is the real racist. You would say that the law should be completely color-blind, and that no one is entitled to any kind of government privilege.

D: That’s right.

C: Second, there’s gender wokeness. You support traditional values relating to sex and gender. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a pervert or a groomer.

D: I have religious texts and thousands of years of history on my side. The idea that people are naturally non-binary is disgusting to me and to most Americans. The recent increase in the number of queer and trans people is proof that the government needs to step in to avoid contagion.

C: Third, there’s climate wokeness. Climate change is just a hook the left uses to increase the size of government and reduce the freedom of white Christians to drive cars and eat meat. It is a form of left-wing oppression directed by the self-serving elite.

D: That sounds about right.

C: Finally, there’s public health wokeness. This involves the medical elite creating mandates based on poor science to restrict the freedom of real Americans. Americans should be free to decide how they want to deal with medical problems. If that means relying on the internet rather than so-called experts, so be it.

D: Public health was kind of my gateway to the whole concept of wokeness. I didn’t truly realize how evil the elites were until they started criticizing my treatment of the pandemic. Everything fell into place after that.

C: But you’ll agree that mask and vaccine mandates don’t really sound like a form of Marxism, so that part of your definition doesn’t work.

D: It’s not a form of identity determinism, but it does involve government oppression. That’s part of Marxism, too.

C: Would you agree that you didn’t really say anything about wokeness during the first few years of your term in office?

D: Yes. As I said, it was the pandemic that opened my eyes. I didn’t really understand the vast scope of the problem until then.

C: This sounds like a good place to stop. Next time, I will be asking you about how you plan to use the federal government to eliminate the four threads.

A World War I Counterfactual

As I have noted before, World War I did not start as an imperialist war; the territorial demands only came afterwards, when all of the participants insisted they were entitled to compensation to justify all the suffering they had endured. In the end, the Allies fought on to more or less total victory. In exchange for that, they ultimately got Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. We would never have heard of any of those people if the parties had negotiated a peace treaty on the basis of the status quo ante in 1916.

Keep that in mind when pundits tell you there is no acceptable alternative to a complete victory for Ukraine.

No Mo BoJo?

Don’t bet on it. Consider this scenario–it’s late 2024, an election is looming, and the Tories are way behind in the polls. Plodding competence simply isn’t impressing the voters. Why not call on the magic man–the guy who won the crushing victory last time? The base still loves him, after all. All is forgiven.

I’m sure that’s what Boris is hoping for, anyway.

All They Wanna Do is Own the Libs

Citing polls showing GOP positions on trans people and parental rights are popular (he doesn’t discuss abortion or gay marriage), Rich Lowry says Ron DeSantis is wise to lean into the culture wars. He is concerned, however, that DeSantis hasn’t tied his opposition to wokeness to a more general narrative in which Americans are better off. Is he right, for once?

In a limited sense, yes, but he has missed the larger point, which is that the entire GOP doesn’t have an agenda to improve the lives of most Americans. It isn’t just DeSantis. The GOP wants to cut taxes for wealthy businessmen and make the lives of the poor and woke as miserable as possible. That’s it. That’s all they have to offer. For example, they don’t have any plans to increase growth in struggling red states, other than a patently counterproductive proposal to reduce the production and use of clean energy, because Republicans are all about reducing the power of government, except to punish their enemies.

In other words, the GOP’s vision of America is limited to owning the libs. It should be fascinating to hear what the presidential candidates have to say during the debates when they are asked specific questions about their nonexistent policy ideas. It will be the exact opposite of talking to Elizabeth Warren about her innumerable plans.

On Republican Logic

If you ask the average GOP voter what issues concern him the most, you are likely to hear the following list of grievances:

  1. Inflation is way too high.
  2. The deficit is out of control.
  3. The border is a sieve.
  4. Deserving white Christian men in rural areas have been left behind by the arrogant coastal elites. They need help.

So, what is the House GOP proposing to solve these problems? Why, a tax cut, of course, which will make the first two worse and deprive the government of resources to address the last two.

It’s Republican logic at its finest.

LIV and Let Die

All of the direct participants in the PGA-LIV deal were winners. The Saudis leveraged their investment in a tour that was costing them hundreds of millions of dollars into partial control of the real tours. The LIV players will get to keep their money and return to the real tours. The disgruntled PGA players will be compensated with bigger purses and equity stakes in the new business. Rabid fans will be happy to see all of the best players under a single tent again. It’s a great deal, no?

Not for Greg Norman, who will be out of a job. More importantly, the average American fan will be turned off by golf’s new association with Saudi money and politics. The estrangement will be particularly noticeable if any elements of the worthless LIV tour are incorporated into PGA events, and if the Saudis nudge tour events on to Trump courses. If either of these things happens, the PGA has lost me as a fan forever.

On Trump and Louis XIV

Louis apparently never said “L’etat, c’est moi,” but Trump probably did (in fourth grade English, of course). How else do you explain why the man would put himself in legal peril for such a trivial benefit?

In 1861, a civil war erupted over slavery in America. In 2023, we could start one over boxes of records in a bathroom.

Will we have riots in Miami, or will the threats of violence turn out to be empty noise, as usual? We’ll see.