Category: Uncategorized

I have spent a lot of time and energy over the years trying to define what wokeness means, both in theory and practice. The more cynical, and probably realistic, approach is to say it is any idea Ron DeSantis dislikes. Fighting wokeness as he defines it is consequently the centerpiece of his campaign.

There are four threads of anti-wokeness, only two of which have deep roots in American thought and culture. The third has only been around for a decade or so, the fourth basically was invented by DeSantis. Here is the list:

1. RACIAL WOKENESS: The battle over racial wokeness revolves around the concept of systemic racism. To the woke, and to many who aren’t woke, it is impossible to look at the discrepancy of a myriad of outcomes for white and black people in this country and find a cause other than an embedded form of racism. To DeSantis and the right, however, no such thing exists. Yes, there were a few unfortunate blips in our country’s history, but they were overcome during the Civil Rights Movement, and since then, blacks and whites have been on a completely equal footing. Any discrepancy of outcomes can be accounted for by bad, paternalistic government policy which encourages black people to lounge in the hammock of dependency. Since racial preferences were probably never necessary, and certainly aren’t necessary now, they should be banned. Anyone who says otherwise is the real racist.
2. GENDER WOKENESS: There are a variety of different kinds of thought here, some of which can actually come into conflict, but the ultimate target is the same: the social and economic dominance of cisgender males. Feminists revolt solely against this dominance, whereas the LGBTQ community increasingly rejects the entire notion of sexual “normality” and insists that historical support for heterosexual behavior is solely a misguided cultural and political construct. DeSantis and the right support traditional ideas of gender and sexual behavior and seek to stamp out everything else. This involves actions directed both at government and private sector actors, such as doctors and Disney.
3. CLIMATE CHANGE WOKENESS: Climate change, in the eyes of the right, is a hoax that was devised to give the left a pretext to use the government to compel real Americans to change their cherished way of life. It is the thin edge of the socialist wedge, and its impacts will be felt mainly by rural Americans who eat lots of meat and rely heavily on their cars. In other words, cars and fossil fuels are freedom and prosperity; public transportation is a mechanism of social control. The target here, for the right, is both government at all levels and “woke capital” which seeks to mitigate climate change impacts and expedite the transition to clean energy.
4. PUBLIC HEALTH WOKENESS: This one was invented by DeSantis. In his telling, all public health mandates are invented by the woke, elitist left in order to restrict the economic and religious freedom of real Americans who rely on right-wing web sites and Fox News for medical advice. Both governments and businesses should be prohibited from imposing any such mandates. If people die as a result, well, give me liberty or give me death! I can tolerate the result either way.

In my next post on anti-wokeness, I will discuss DeSantis’ argument that wokeness, as he defines it, is a form of “cultural Marxism.” Following that, I will analyze what a DeSantis presidency might mean for the private actors at the center of the battle, including left-wing intellectuals, the MSM, Hollywood, and academia.

Due to the extreme circumstances of the pandemic, Biden began his term as a radical reformer–an aspiring FDR for the 21st century. He and the left thought they had an opportunity to move America from the dollar store economy to something more equitable for workers. It didn’t happen, partly because of inflation, and partly because he never had the votes for a more comprehensive reform agenda in the Senate. His legislative record was impressive in its way, but no one can seriously argue that he was the second coming of FDR.

In the second half of his term, with a Republican House, he will be struggling to keep the gains from the first half. He will be the wise old head–the true conservative in the room–protecting American freedoms from right-wing bomb throwers, not a frustrated radical reformer.

Given America’s innate opposition to change, it’s a good place to be.

If I were able to interview DeSantis, these are some of the questions I would like to ask him:

1. How do you square your unwillingness to admit that Trump lost the 2020 election with your argument that you are more electable than he is?
2. What is your ultimate objective in your feud with Disney? Are you trying to force Disney to make movies that show minorities and LGBTQ people in an unfavorable light? Are you trying to make minorities and LGBTQ people feel less comfortable in Disney parks?
3. Young LGBTQ people are frequently bullied and ostracized. What message are you trying to send to them and the bullies with your anti-gay and anti-trans legislation? What do you want them to do with their condition?
4. Would you bring back family separation at the border? If not, what would you do, given the limited resources available, to reduce illegal immigration?
5. Would you censor woke opinions on the internet to protect children? If so, how, and how would you make the case that your legislation complies with the First Amendment?
6. Would you deny federal funds–say, after a hurricane–to blue states until they eliminate all evidence of wokeness in public institutions?
7. Would you deny federal funds to all colleges and universities, including the use of Pell Grants by students, as long as they have DEI programs and courses you consider woke?
8. Is a woman who believes in abortion rights woke?
9. Would you use the overturning of New York Times v. Sullivan as a litmus test for judicial nominees?
10. The New Right clearly believes that America is a Christian nation, and that non-Christians should be banned from participation in government. Do you agree with that?
11. Should the January 6 rioters be pardoned?
12. Given your hostility to China, there is no hope of working with the Chinese to stop the North Koreans from putting a nuclear warhead on an ICBM. How, then, would you deal with the North Koreans?
13. As a result of Trump’s decision to scrap the Iran deal, the Iranians are much closer to getting the bomb than ever. Are you willing to go to war with Iran in order to prevent that from happening? Would your objectives in such a war include regime change?
14. What actions would you take if Putin escalates the war in Ukraine through attacks on NATO or the use of weapons of mass destruction?
15. Are you willing to go to war if Putin threatens Poland or the Baltic States?
16. Would you undo Biden’s diplomatic and military initiatives regarding the containment of China?
17. Do you believe that Trump’s Chinese tariffs were a success? If so, why?
18. What is your plan to deal with the financial problems facing Social Security and Medicare?
19. Do you believe climate change is a hoax? If you do, why did your government provide funds for climate resiliency to local governments?
20. How do you account for the vast discrepancy between the average wealth of white and black families if you believe that there is no such thing as systemic racism in America?

Price controls aren’t the answer to greedflation, because the bureaucracy that would be involved wouldn’t be justified by the limited magnitude of the problem. Better consumer choices are the best antidote available to us. That said, inflation is obviously unpopular, and price controls would be a simplistic answer that would appeal to many populists. Is it possible that one or more of the principal GOP contenders would support them?

It is unlikely, but not impossible. You can imagine Trump getting ahead of his skis on the issue in a debate if the crowd eggs him on. DeSantis–not so much. He may not like woke capital, but his concerns about business are not going to extend that far.

Lindsey Graham is back at Mar-a-Largo. Trump is feeling good about his position, so he lets Graham wait an hour this time.

T: Linseed! Good to see you again!

G: Last time, you said you would talk about DeSantis once he had declared. It’s time.

T: Right! It’s time to kick his DeSanctimonious butt!

G: What’s the plan?

T: it has multiple parts. The first part, of course, is to keep pressing him about the rigged election and January 6. He will just keep on refusing to answer, which will make him look like an unprincipled wimp to the base.

G: Makes sense. What else?

T: Attack him as an ungrateful tool of the establishment who is trying to trick the base into abandoning their true champion. We can even say George Soros is behind it. Who knows, anyway?

G: How do you do that?

T: Talk about his education. He went to Harvard and Yale. He says he didn’t inhale. Sure! He also supported the war in Iraq, and he’s weak on Ukraine. Very weak. The base won’t like that.

G: What else?

T: Call him an opportunistic wimp on issues relating to wokeness. He didn’t say anything about the border or crime or vaccines or fossil fuels or the educational establishment for years; it only came up when he decided to run for president. I’ve been talking about those issues for years. He’s just following my lead.

G: OK. So far, so good. Anything else?

T: Keep up the personal insults. Get him to roll in the mud with me. Make it a referendum on crazy. I can’t be beaten in a battle like that. You know it as well as I do.

G: Sure do. Anything else?

T: He’s starting to run as Ted Cruz in 2016. I say, go for it! I beat Cruz like a drum, and Pence is already in that lane. They’ll split up the anti-abortion extremists and let me back in.

G: Sounds like a plan. Count me in. (He leaves)

The record will show that I was writing about a likely debt ceiling crisis even before the 2020 election, and that I initially predicted that a deal would be struck that would involve mostly cosmetic cuts to spending. In the end, that is exactly what happened. More recently, however, I changed my position and suggested that Biden would be forced to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment in the face of a united and unreasonable House GOP. What happened, and what does it mean for us going forward?

My later prediction was based on the accurate assumption that a large number of GOP House members would vote against an acceptable deal (I said it would be 50-100; it was 71) and that McCarthy would never put forth a proposal that would substantially divide his caucus and put his gavel in jeopardy. I was wrong on the last point; McCarthy did not negotiate in the manner of a man who is willing to take the nation off the cliff in order to keep his side united and his job completely safe. That in turn means either that he is more public-spirited than I thought, based on his record, or that he believed the GOP would be punished by donors and voters for the chaos that ensued. Either way, it is good news for the vast majority of us who don’t want to burn it down. We can breathe a sigh of relief until November 2024.

DeSantis clearly wants to force the woke left to shut up. But what if he succeeded? Where would the right-wing outrage machine go for material? How can you own the libs if the libs can’t say or do anything the right can ridicule?

Trump understands this perfectly. It is the basis for the Fox News business model. DeSantis hasn’t grasped it yet.

In 2016, Chris Christie made unpopular cuts to Social Security and Medicare the centerpiece of his campaign, which went nowhere. It appears that he plans to run again in 2024. Will he take the same position on entitlements?

I think he will, even though GOP orthodoxy on Social Security and Medicare has changed, because he has less to lose. Entitlements are popular with the reactionary base, but he has no chance of winning those people over, anyway. Entitlement cuts are popular with business; that is where his opportunity exists.

You can say that again.

Do you remember Trump’s secret plan to destroy IS? He never told us what it was, but in practice, it was to continue with the approach created under Obama. It worked, too.

Today, Trump is saying he has a secret plan to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. He won’t say what it is, of course, but if such a plan actually exists, it has to be changing sides and offering Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter.

Next up: the Trump secret (and nonexistent) plan to fight inflation.

A few years ago, I mused about the possibility that the red states might secede and form their own country–the RSA (Reactionary States of America). I decided the capital of the RSA should be Oklahoma City, for three reasons: it is in the heart of the RSA; it is firmly associated with fossil fuels; and it is the site of the McVeigh bombing. I hypothesized that McVeigh would ultimately be viewed as a sort of right-wing John Brown, and celebrated as a warrior against the deep blue state in the RSA.

It is becoming clear that I was right. A number of new books are finding a thread that runs from Waco through McVeigh to Trump and January 6. The reassessment of McVeigh by the right is already underway.

In a sense, given the level of hostility expressed by the hard right against the government, it is surprising that there have been no further attacks on federal facilities by rabid right-wing groups. Is it because it is so much easier to just buy a gun and shoot people in private places? Is it because the federal government has effectively deterred this kind of activity with rigorous security measures and prosecutions? Or is it just that the right is more mouth than action?

I suspect the answer is all three.

DeSantis is a vet, so Memorial Day should be an opportunity for him to shine. He can contrast his willingness to serve with the actions of Cadet Bone Spurs, and even bring up Trump’s contempt for wounded vets. Will he do it?

Probably not, because it would piss off at least some of the base. Thus far, he has avoided that at all costs.

A few years ago, our old friend Sohrab Ahmari caused quite a stir in right-wing circles with an article entitled “Against David French-ism.” Ahmari condemned French for fighting a rear-guard action against change; in his view, the right should be doing everything in its power to impose its traditional values on the entire country, even if it didn’t represent a majority on the issue. He didn’t explain exactly how that was going to happen in a liberal democracy, but the message was clear: by whatever means necessary, including the destruction of constitutional government as we have known it since the 18th century. Ahmari is thus an illiberal democrat at best and an outright fascist at worst.

French is a lawyer. He believes in liberal democracy and the rule of law. Unlike most of today’s GOP, he seeks to persuade, not to oppress. He understands that change is inevitable, but he wants to slow it down in order to make it manageable. He isn’t trying to bring back some kind of reactionary fantasy world through the exercise of will and federal government power.

He is exactly the kind of right-winger America needs today. He is a genuine American conservative, not a reactionary.

Such is the hold that Trump has over the base, all of the other candidates have defined themselves in relation to him. It goes like this:

`1. DeSantis: Trump, but more methodical, results-oriented, and electable.

2. Haley: A bridge between Trump and the Never Trumpers.

3. Ramaswamy: Even Trumpier than Trump.

4. Scott: A far less combative version of Trump.

5. Pence: Trump on 1/5/21, and stronger on abortion.

If Christie runs, it will be as not Trump. Trump, of course, is the American Caligula. He is inimitable, as DeSantis is learning to his cost.

Here are the winners and losers:

WINNER: JOE BIDEN. He avoids a disaster, validates his theory of the case on bipartisan compromises, and saves his legislative legacy.

LOSERS: PROGRESSIVES. They didn’t want to give up anything. Once you accept the need to negotiate, that wasn’t going to happen.

???: KEVIN MCCARTHY. History will look kindly on his willingness to make a deal that is reasonable and reflects the balance of power in Congress. My SEP and 401(k) are also grateful. But now, the crazoids will never trust him again. He will be dependent on Democrats to keep his job. It is an outcome that I did not predict.

LOSERS: DONALD TRUMP AND RON DESANTIS. It sounds good to say that, doesn’t it? Trump wanted either capitulation or chaos; he got neither. He will be screaming about the deal in all caps from this day forward.

LOSERS: HOUSE CRAZOIDS. We’re not burning it down, folks.

What will McCarthy do now? Will he effectively become the leader of a coalition government, or will he do everything he can to mollify the crazoids, including lots of useless investigations and impeachments? I’m guessing the latter, but it doesn’t matter. This was the big one, and in a few days it should be over, because the House GOP is in no position to reject the deal; they would clearly be blamed by the public for its failure, and it would cost them in 2024.