Category: Uncategorized

Trump is back at Mar-a-Lago, discussing the indictment circus with one of his attorneys.

T: Well, that was a huge success, don’t you think?

A: What do you mean?

T: Look at all of the attention I got! It was like OJ takes NYC!

A: Is that a good thing? Are you really comfortable coming across as a white OJ?

T: Absolutely! DeSantis would kill for that kind of coverage! It reminds everyone that the Republican Party revolves around me. The base loves it, and it’s good for fundraising.

A: Whatever. I’ll leave the politics to you. We need to discuss what comes next, and what doesn’t.

T: OK.

A: First of all, I would advise any other client not to attack the DA, but I know you’re going to do it, so I won’t bother. It doesn’t make that much difference, anyway. That said, there are two things you absolutely cannot do.

T: They are?

A: Don’t attack the judge at your rallies and on social media, and don’t do anything to encourage violence. Both of those things will hurt you in the legal proceeding.

T: I’ll do my best, but I make no promises. The base likes it when I’m on the attack. What happens next?

A: We’ll go after the indictment. We’ll argue that it is legally flawed. That’s the best defense we have. It may or may not work.

T: What else?

A: We’ll ask for a change in venue, but I doubt we’ll get it. You’re the most famous man in the world, and everyone knows about the charges, so getting an impartial jury will be a challenge no matter where we go. Besides, you’re not entitled to a jury of Trump voters. You know that, don’t you?

T: That doesn’t seem fair to me.

A: We may dig into the grand jury proceedings and see if we find anything useful there.

T: OK. Just remember to be as aggressive as possible. That’s my brand.

A: One question we have for you–do you want this to move slowly or quickly? I know you usually do whatever you can to delay legal proceedings, but do you really want a trial during the middle of 2024, as opposed to sometime this year? It’s a political question, not a legal question, so it’s up to you.

T: I’ll think about it. (The attorney leaves)

The first reason–the obvious one–is to discredit and financially damage the heart of the vast right-wing media conspiracy: Fox News. The second one is to make it clear to the general public, and to the Supreme Court, that the New York Times v. Sullivan test can be met in an appropriate case, so there is no need to change the test. A victory for Fox would provide support for the DeSantis theory that the law needs to be revised and ultimately strike a blow to liberal democracy in America.

My guess is that the attorneys for Fox will push desperately for settlement now that the company’s summary judgment motion has been denied. Let’s hope their client can’t be persuaded to make a deal.

Following the latest mass school shooting, I read a number of columns from genuine Christians who argue that prayers are, indeed, useful—both as a source of comfort and an inspiration for action. I accept that reasoning from them.

But, far too often, “thoughts and prayers” is a phrase used by reactionary politicians who use it to deflect criticism from their real, but unspoken, belief that the lives of children are acceptable collateral damage for the greater good of permitting and even expanding gun ownership. These people have zero interest in using “thoughts and prayers” as a motivation for legislative action; they just don’t want to be viewed as the cold-hearted cretins they really are. That is the reason the left usually scoffs at the phrase.

Fast forward to October. The GOP debates have begun. True to form, Trump has been unloading unmercifully on DeSantis, calling him, among other things, an ingrate, a RINO, an establishment figure, and an opportunist. Also true to form, and in deference to the beloved reactionary base, DeSantis has been attempting to rise above the attacks. He occasionally gets in a passive-aggressive jab or two, but mostly he takes the punishment and focuses on Biden and the Democrats.

Does this approach work? Does the reactionaries give DeSantis credit for laying off Trump, or do they just consider him a wimp?

I’m guessing the latter.

Here’s where they stand on fascism:

1. CLs: Ugh! Ugh! We believe in a tiny state and in maximizing freedom. Fascists glorify and increase the size of the state and use it to control every aspect of life in their country. It is the worst possible political system other than communism.
2. CDs: We support the effort to bring back and enforce traditional values, but the cost in freedom isn’t worth it.
3. PBPs: A fascist state has too much arbitrary control over business.
4. Reactionaries: We’re split. Some of us believe our objectives can be accomplished through constitutional means, while others think the only way forward is to burn it down, give power to a despot, and return America to the 1950s. The second group is fascist; the first group is not.

And that, in a nutshell, is the fundamental difference between Trump and DeSantis voters. DeSantis voters want an illiberal democracy; Trump supporters are ready to go full fascist, as evidenced by January 6.

In 1914, Henry Ford increased his employees’ wages to $5 per day, which apparently was the equivalent of about $17 per hour in today’s dollars. He did not, however, jack up the price of a Model T. This was done primarily to reduce employee turnover, but it also had the impact of making it easier for his workers to buy a Model T. It created a virtuous cycle.

Today’s businesses are doing their best to keep wages down, but when labor shortages make that impossible, they increase prices (frequently at a rate higher than their cost increases) in order to maintain their profits. This has the effect of increasing inequality and decreasing the size of their consumer base, which makes them more vulnerable to a recession. It is Ford in reverse, and it won’t end well.

Ron DeSantis hasn’t even announced he’s running for president, much less run any commercials or participated in any debates. And yet, based on the current state of the polls, some commentators are already writing him off. Is that fair?

Absolutely not. It’s way, way too early to draw conclusions like that; for one thing, the polls are all over the map. The one thing DeSantis genuinely has to worry about, however, is the attitude of Fox News. If Rupert Murdoch suddenly decides he’s a loser, he’ll make it up with Trump, and then DeSantis will be in real trouble. He’s not going to win without Fox in his corner.

The Israeli opposition claims to be defending “democracy.” The government, however, insists that making the judiciary more responsive to the electorate is “democratic.” Who is right?

It depends on how precisely you frame the question. If the issue is purely about majority rule, the government is right. The big picture, however, is about protecting minorities and individual rights from government overreaching; in other words, the actual issue is about liberal democracy, not any old kind of democracy. On that point, the opposition has a very strong case; the Netanyahu ideal, much like the Orban and Trump visions, is a government with no meaningful guardrails except occasional elections.

Some GOP leaders want to “save” Social Security and Medicare by increasing the retirement age. As I noted in a previous post, this was already done in 1983. Does it make sense to do it again?

It’s too late! The demographic problem that is causing the Social Security shortfall (the one that was fully anticipated 40 years ago) is the size of the Boomer generation relative to the number of taxpaying American workers. Many of the Boomers (like me) have already retired; all of them will be eligible for Medicare by 2029 and Social Security by 2031. A slow increase in the retirement age cannot, therefore, address this issue. The horse is already out of the barn.

The logical ways to deal with the Boomer problem are to get rid of the earnings cap, do a better job of controlling medical costs, and encourage young people to immigrate here. Period.

I used to watch Mark Russell specials religiously when I was growing up. I particularly loved his political song parodies. But he slipped out of my life, and I haven’t thought about him in decades.

His death made something clear to me–my blog owes a great deal to him, and I didn’t even know it. Now I do. Thanks, Mark, and rest in peace.

The race for the GOP nomination will, of course, be defined by Trump. His challengers will have to decide how to deal with him without alienating his voters. There are essentially three potential ways of doing this:

1. Accept all of Trump’s positions and run as a more competent and electable version of the man on golf cart;
2. Build bridges to both the 30 and the 70 percent by accepting most, but not all, of Trump’s positions and hope the big beasts falter; or
3. Confront Trump directly, unite the 70 percent, and win over the 30 percent during the general election campaign by talking about the horrors of a second Biden term. In other words, gamble that the 30 percent has nowhere else to go.

DeSantis is on the first track. Haley and the other potential candidates who served under Trump are on the second. If Chris Christie decides to run, he clearly plans to try #3.

I doubt it would work, but you certainly would like to see him give it a go, wouldn’t you?

I am not at all sure that the indictment was in the public interest. One argument that is being made against it does not convince me at all, however: that no one other than Trump would be prosecuted under this set of facts.

The argument presupposes that there are other people out there similarly situated to Trump. How many other New Yorkers were elected president in 2016 because they managed to conceal a relationship with a porn star by concealing hush money payments?

Ron DeSantis proudly told us “There’s a new sheriff in town” after the Florida Legislature approved his new Disney legislation. Unfortunately for him, it turns out that Disney signed a development agreement with the old board that effectively strips the new board of most of its regulatory power. The Hungarian Candidate and his minions are not pleased; meanwhile, Trump is crowing about how Mickey Mouse outwitted his sparring partner.

Ordinarily, I would have little sympathy for a giant corporation that, like the airlines, is determined to identify every possible aspect of a customer experience and charge for it. Given the nature of this dispute, however, Mickey has my full support.

When I was up in North Carolina, I usually bought my own 2-liter bottles of soda, so I knew very well how much they cost. In Florida, I have relied on my wife to do the grocery shopping; however, I bought soda for myself yesterday, and discovered that the price had increased a whopping 50 cents since the beginning of February. Why?

Have gas prices soared during the last two months? Has the cost of the materials needed to create and bottle soda gone up dramatically in that time? Have manufacturing wages skyrocketed in 2023?

No, to all of those questions. The price has gone up because the manufacturer has determined that the market will bear a higher price. In other words, the increased profit per unit more than offsets any loss in the number of units sold.

This is the problem with which the Fed is currently struggling. Interest rate hikes won’t solve it unless they cause the markets to tank and make people like me think we can’t afford overpriced soda anymore.

There is a long, and many would say ignoble, history of prominent American politicians arguing for the primacy of the states over the federal government. What is the basis for this claim, and does it hold water?

The argument is usually premised on the fact that the 13 states that ratified the Constitution existed before it did. The flip side of this, however, is that the vast majority of our current 50 states became states after the ratification of the Constitution, with the permission of the federal government, under conditions set by the federal government. As to the original 13 states, their boundaries and political systems were initially created, not by some Lockean agreement of their citizens, but by the King of England and groups of influential English courtiers; to cite one example, Pennsylvania was essentially the payment of a debt owed by Charles II to William Penn’s father. The American Revolution was fought to free us from these people. Why would we rely on them as the basis for our political system today?

If you don’t accept the first-in-time argument, you must then fall back on the idea that the locals have the most knowledge of local conditions and should therefore be permitted to govern themselves. That being the case, blue cities in red states should not have their legislation preempted, right? Right?