Category: Uncategorized

Ron DeSantis is clearly keeping his options open. By pushing his “freedom for me, but not for thee” agenda, he has made himself the darling of the base. He will undoubtedly be the front-runner if Trump doesn’t run. But what if the man on golf cart does, in fact, run? Having positioned himself to the right of Trump, would DeSantis have the nerve to take him on?

Here are the Hungarian Candidate’s options:

1. AGREE TO BECOME TRUMP’S VP: There are three huge problems with this choice. First, one can’t assume Trump would agree to leave office in 2028, since he has no respect for any other part of the Constitution. Second, the Pence example suggests that the four years as VP would be a truly miserable experience. Finally, if Trump actually leaves the stage, his unpopularity will attach to his VP. It’s a really bad bet.
2. BIDE YOUR TIME: If Trump loses in 2024, DeSantis would be the leading candidate to be the GOP nominee in a battle with a Democrat who would be wearing Biden’s unpopularity. If Trump wins, his VP could be a factor in the primaries in 2028, but the likelihood is that nobody with any status in the GOP will want the job. DeSantis is in good shape either way.
3. RUN AGAINST TRUMP FROM THE RIGHT: The anti-anti-Trumpers (AATs) will have his back, and there will be plenty of support from the intellectual leaders of the party. Would that be enough to beat the man on golf cart? The results of the GOP primaries and a variety of polls tell me the answer is no. The base is still addicted to Trump, and wants DeSantis to wait his turn.

In short, I think he will chicken out unless the polls indicate the combination of the January 6 Committee proceedings and the Ukraine war have thrown Trump’s support off a cliff. But what if he goes ahead? Which of these odious candidates would be better, from a center-left perspective? For that, see my next post.

Holiday!

Celebrate!

——Madonna

The gas tax holiday is a fairly desperate effort to prove to an angry public that the administration is doing everything it can to get inflation under control. Unlike the pending proposal to reduce the tariffs on Chinese imports, it is bad policy. High gas prices are good for the environment, the tax is necessary to fund infrastructure improvements, and in any event, the magic of the marketplace has already started to work without government assistance. Gas prices have fallen significantly in the last week in response to fears about a recession–not that anyone in the media has noticed.

My guess is that it won’t pass, mostly because the GOP won’t support it. Having thus opposed a tax cut that would reduce inflation, the right will then bang on about how Biden has done nothing about inflation, and about how we need to cut taxes on business, thereby proving yet again that it is far more interested in power than principle.

In the early stages of the war, I imagined a scenario in which NATO, through neutral countries, had to airlift supplies to Kyiv. While that turned out to be unnecessary, a similar situation, on a larger scale, is evolving today. The Russian naval blockade is preventing Ukraine from exporting grain through the Black Sea, with severe consequences to the entire world.

The best solution to this would be for the Ukrainians to use NATO weapons to break the blockade. That may not be possible. Barring that, at some point in time, NATO will probably have to organize and provide military support for a convoy of merchant ships from neutral countries to run the blockade. It would be dangerous, to be sure. But Stalin didn’t shoot down the American planes in 1948; would Putin really have the nerve to risk World War III for such a limited purpose, particularly in light of the support it would cost him in the rest of the world?

I predicted in early January that the Supreme Court would increasingly take the completely ahistorical position that the legally relevant conflict in America was not between individual religions, but between religion and “secular humanism.” The Carson decision is more evidence that I was right. The Court is determined to prevent what it sees as discrimination against religion by secular authorities even if it means disregarding the clear requirements of the Establishment Clause.

The majority opinion assures us that states are still entitled to operate purely secular public school systems. I am about as comforted by that comment as I am by Alito’s statement in the draft Dobbs decision that abortion is completely distinguishable from birth control or LGBTQ issues. The logic of this decision, and those it cites in support, will ultimately lead to a serious argument that states are required to operate voucher systems for religious schools if they want to maintain secular public schools. At that point, all of us will be required to support schools that espouse religious values with which we have fundamental disagreements with our tax dollars, and American history will have been turned on its head.

Ross Douthat thinks the age of cheap money is over, that federal spending will have to be reduced as a result, and that both progressives and populists will suffer. Paul Krugman, on the other hand, thinks the current regime of inflation and higher interest rates is just a blip. Who is right?

Two observations here. First, I noted in a series of posts years ago that the American economy was hooked on low interest rates, and that any change in conditions would have significant implications to asset prices and government spending programs. I was right and will take a bow. Second, this is a very important question, with no clear answer. We can only talk in probabilities, not certainties.

Low interest rates were caused by low rates of inflation, which in turn were caused by demographic and technological change and by globalization. These trends earned the name “secular stagnation,” and were a universal phenomenon among highly developed countries. The demographic changes are still with us. The pace of technological change is still about the same. Globalization will change as the result of our uneasy relationship with China, but will not disappear. The war and the pandemic, on the other hand, will go away at some point. In my opinion, therefore, the balance of probabilities falls in Krugman’s favor.

So the war rumbles on in Ukraine.

And now Putin is bringing the pain.

Can we break the blockade?

Can we send enough aid?

Can we take back the ill-gotten gains?

The leaders of the GOP know perfectly well that Trump is dangerous and irresponsible. They also know that the man on golf cart commands the loyalty of a majority of Republican voters, however, and they don’t have the nerve to cross him. As a result, they enable him, and pray that someone else will solve their problem for them.

The January 6 Committee is their deus ex machina. It is putting the blame squarely on Trump and his minions, not on the GOP as a whole. That’s perfect for the likes of McCarthy, McConnell, and DeSantis. They can rail about how unfair the process is, thereby maintaining their connection with the base, while the Democrats and the GOP dissidents destroy Trump’s reputation with swing voters, thereby making it more likely that someone else will be the nominee in 2024, which is exactly what they want.

I’m sure you remember the scene in “The Wizard of Oz” in which the Wicked Witch of the West writes “Surrender Dorothy” in the sky. Putin’s campaign in Ukraine is a bit like that. He has no choice; he doesn’t have the resources to occupy the country, so he has to break its will.

There were three possible ways to accomplish this. The first was by a lightning campaign with a big dose of political persuasion; the second was through shock and awe; and the third was by methodically destroying everything in the Donbas and imposing a sea blockade. The first two approaches have already failed; the fate of the third remains to be seen.

The introduction of longer-range American artillery to the battlefield will make dramatic Russian advances unlikely. The blockade presents different issues. I will discuss these tomorrow.

Millennials will complain bitterly at the drop of a hat that the older generations owned more wealth than they do at the same age. While this is true, it ignores the fact that the Boomers will start dying off in large numbers in a few years, so a massive intergenerational wealth transfer is just around the corner. What will this mean, in the big picture?

Millions of struggling millennials are about to become wealthy. Their politics, which are currently predominantly left-leaning, may turn to the right. The extent to which they inherit will depend, however, not just on their parents’ resources, but on how much is spent on end-of-life care. Millennials of similar age, occupation, and background may find themselves in dramatically different circumstances, depending on the percentage of a given estate that is spent on doctors. Expect this to become an increasingly important policy issue as time goes on.

As I’ve noted many times before, to the GOP, every Republican candidate is the sunny, manly Ronald Reagan, and every Democrat is the weak and inept Jimmy Carter. With that in mind, the midterms look like a feast for the GOP; with inflation raging, problems with Iran, and the Russians invading a neighbor, how much more like 1980 could it be?

The logical question is whether this improbable turn of events could change the GOP back into a Reaganite–not a Trumpist–party, focused less on transgender athletes and cancel culture and more on real issues that impact all Americans. The correct answer to the question, alas, is no. Reactionaries made up a relatively small proportion of Republicans in 1980; today, they run the show, and they really, really care about things like bathroom bills. They aren’t going to give up culture wars just because they have genuine domestic and foreign policy issues to use as sticks against Democrats.

Biden has arrived at the palace. MBS is there to greet him.

MBS: Mr. President, at long last! Welcome!

B: It’s good to be here.

MBS: Of course, Trump got here long before you did.

B: Look on the bright side. You don’t have to entertain me with that weird orb thing.

MBS: Trump liked it. And he was a good friend to us, at least most of the time.

B: To me, Trump’s relationship with you was a bit like a passionate, but bad, marriage. With me, it will be strictly business.

MBS: Ok. Fine. You want to talk business. I assume that means us pumping more oil.

B: Right.

MBS: Why should we do that? Not just for you, surely.

B: It will gain you the goodwill of the American people–my party, in particular. You could use some goodwill after the murder thing.

MBS: I have a different idea.

B: I’m all ears.

MBS: Why don’t you just agree not to sign any nuclear deals with the Iranians?

B: I haven’t signed anything yet.

MBS: That’s because you’re afraid of the political fallout. You really want to sign. We know you do.

B: If we don’t make a deal–even a bad one–with the Iranians, they’ll have an unacceptably short breakout period. Is that what you want?

MBS: Of course not.

B: Then, what’s your plan?

MBS: American air strikes, of course. It’s the only answer. It always was.

B: So you’re offering lower gas prices in exchange for a perpetual war between America and Iran?

MBS: Sounds like a good deal for me. You go up in the polls, and we get Iran under control.

B: That’s crazier than killing journalists. Do you really think I would agree to go to war just for a bump in the polls?

MBS: Sure! That’s what democratic politicians do. I don’t have that problem.

B: Well, I do, but I’m not going to start a war just for a bump in the polls. That’s not how we do it in America.

MBS: I bet Trump would do it.

B: Maybe, but he’s an outlier.

MBS: Is he? He looks pretty mainstream America to me.

B: Well, forget it. Think about the goodwill offer. You’re going to need the support of my party in the future. Without us, you don’t have any security against the Iranians.

MBS: I’ll think about it. (Biden leaves)

A note to my readers: I will be out of town between 6/13 and 6/21. Regular posts will resume thereafter.

Put yourself in Bernie’s shoes. The right is using cultural/identity issues to divide white working people from your woke activists. What do you do?

There are no good choices here. You could move to the right on culture war issues and increase the size of your voting pool, but you would lose your most fervent supporters, who represent the future of your movement. If you side with the wokes, you lose any hope of creating an effective majority in the country for the foreseeable future.

It appears to me that the decision has been made by default in favor of the activists. The future may belong to your movement, but for the present, you are stuck in the mud.

Reactionaries constantly tell us that the left is becoming more radical each day, and is using its vast cultural power to marginalize real America. The editor of Jacobin tells Ezra Klein, on the other hand, that the left has no power at all. Could he possibly be correct?

Yes, as applied to his part of the left. As I’ve noted many times before, there is a huge distinction between the woke and socialist versions of the left. The former has, as alleged by the right, moved to the left during the last decade, and drives progressive opinion on social media. It seeks and wields cultural, not political, power. The latter, led by Sanders and the Squad, is interested in issues of class and economic equality; it doesn’t much care about the 1619 Project, bathroom bills, and transgender athletes. It wants political power to help American workers, but it doesn’t have any. It represents a minority of the Democratic Party, and a small sliver of America as a whole, largely because it refuses to take cultural issues seriously.

The right, for its own cynical purposes, is fond of treating the two groups as if they were identical. In reality, there is a good argument that the great accomplishment of the reactionary right, and the great failure of the progressive left, has been in merging different strands of thought into a single, powerful movement with a narrative that is compelling and easy to understand.

Ross Douthat advises us that the mainstream right will blow off any of the allegations against Trump because the left is as guilty of violating liberal democratic norms as he is. Is there any justice to this argument?

Let’s deconstruct it. The right’s complaints revolve around the following: censorship on the web; mob violence during BLM demonstrations; “defunding the police” and otherwise being soft on crime; and evolving standards regarding sexual identity and behavior. The first is attributable to a few (not liberal) billionaire businessmen and the Twitter left; the second involved the behavior of a few individuals during mostly peaceful demonstrations; the third is also a Twitter left phenomenon, except that Trump and the GOP joined in a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill a few years ago; and the last applies solely to a handful of woke activists. No part of the indictment, as it were, factually or logically pertains to Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the mainstream of the Democratic Party (which voted for Biden), or me.

The essence of the problem here is that the right attributes the behavior of a handful of left-wing nonpoliticians to everyone who didn’t vote for Trump, and then says that far more dangerous actions taken by a US president are the same thing. They aren’t. It’s a clear category error. Period.

Imagine that you are a typical GOP candidate, screaming about inflation. As you see it, Biden and the Democrats are responsible for it, because they spent way too much money. Get rid of them, and the problem will go away.

A reporter interviewing you suggests that, if (as you say) the problem is excessive demand fueled primarily by the stimulus checks and overpayments to state and local governments, the logical solutions would be to increase taxes, thereby soaking up the excess savings, and to demand that blue and red states alike put the overpayments into rainy day funds instead of tax cuts. How do you respond to that?

Do I hear silence? The usual Republican solution–tax cuts–will only make inflation worse, but don’t expect anyone to admit that.