The EU grew by about 4 percent last year. EU inflation is running about 5 percent. By comparison, we grew by over 5 percent, but inflation is 7 percent.
It would be completely fair to ask the American voters if they would prefer the EU cocktail of lower inflation and slower growth. Many of them would probably say yes, but most workers would not, if you explained that would mean lower wages and higher unemployment. That is the real choice on offer–not high growth and no inflation.
Over halfway through last night’s NBC News broadcast, Lester Holt announced that the American economy had grown over 5 percent in real terms last year–the highest rate since 1984. This, apparently, was a piece of throwaway news–an afterthought.
Mind you, this is NBC, not Fox. Stories about how we’re growing rapidly and living in more comfort than before don’t fit the prevailing Biden is a bozo and the Democrats are in disarray narratives, so they get little publicity, and Biden is subsequently blamed for being a bad salesman for his very real accomplishments. There hasn’t even been an attempt by the MSM to explain that the inflation we’re all bitching about is the result of a combination of Biden’s success in delivering that additional comfort and security and supply chain problems over which he has little or no control.
It’s very disheartening. One can only hope that the MSM are only driving down expectations, and plan to start a “comeback kid” narrative sometime later this year when inflation eases. My fear, of course, is we actually will get a new helping of false equivalence: sure, the GOP is the party of culture wars and violent insurrection, but the Democrats brought us inflation resulting from high growth, so what’s the difference?
As you would expect, a number of GOP establishment figures have accused Biden of appeasing Putin. You have to make a display of standing up to bullies to keep them under control, they say. Just think of Munich.
These are the same people who indulged Trump at every turn, who refuse to criticize the January 6 rioters and their accomplices, and who remain silent while Trump, Carlson, and the rest of the extreme right take Russia’s side in the dispute.
What’s that I smell? Could it be . . . the stench of hypocrisy?
Talk about commitment! The anti-vaxxers feel so strongly about their cause, they’re willing to die for it. Why?
For two reasons. The first is populist and “democratic”: elites of all sorts, including your doctor, are stupid, cynical, and self-interested, so you are better off trusting yourself and some guy you don’t even know on the internet who wants to sell you a useless product that supposedly cures the virus. The second revolves around the right-wing cult of strength and the rugged individual. As with climate change, there is no rugged individual solution to the pandemic, so the best way to deal with it is to operate as if it doesn’t exist. Get on with your life; if you die, you die heroically, as a free man and a patriot–not as a captive cowering in the basement.
According to today’s NYT, it is as I suspected: the Trump/Carlson right is supporting Russia, and the mainstream is refusing to speak against them.
Papering over the cracks isn’t going to work in the long run. Like January 6, Ukraine is going to be a significant issue during the GOP primaries, to say nothing of 2024.
Imagine that it is early November, and the outlook is poor for the Democrats. Inflation is still raging; the pandemic is still with us; and everyone is fed up. What should the party do?
When the GOP is in trouble, it doubles down on the culture wars even though its position does not command a majority of the population because it fires up the base in the states it needs most. Could the Democrats do the same thing with their base?
Absolutely! Start with January 6, right-wing censorship, support of anti-vaxxers, and abortion rights. That should do the trick. It may not win you the election, but it can certainly limit your losses.
Will Rogers once famously told the world he belonged to no organized political party–he was a Democrat. The MSM have loved that meme ever since. We are constantly told that the party is disunited and directionless. But is it true?
Let’s look at the record. Every major Biden initiative has passed the House, even though the Democrats have a microscopic majority. The pandemic relief bill and the infrastructure bill survived the Senate and became law. The BBB is opposed in its current form by two senators who are better described as independents; the 48 true Democrats support it. The voting rights legislation was supported by all 50 Democrats (real and nominal), but was stopped by the filibuster, because the two independents don’t want to change the Senate’s rules. Judicial appointments are mostly going smoothly, with the support of the independents and a few Republicans.
Does that sound like a party in disarray to you? The reality is that the party is surprisingly united, and the two senators who are holding up the rest of the agenda were never advertised as lobby fodder for the left. The problem is with the expectations, not the facts on the ground.
In a painfully transparent effort to distance themselves from the stench of Trump’s bromance with Putin, some GOP leaders are demanding that Biden unilaterally impose sanctions before any kind of invasion. This would eliminate any leverage we have to prevent the invasion and create serious rifts with our NATO allies, who clearly and reasonably want any punishment to fit the crime. It would thus accomplish much of what Putin wants without actually forcing him to go to the trouble of invading.
Is this just a more devious GOP gambit to make Russia great again? Or is it pure cynical opportunism aimed at the electorate? Both, perhaps?
Who is more dangerous: Trump or DeSantis? Here are my observations:
I am reading more and more articles which suggest that a significant part of the right has gravitated from Trump to DeSantis. You would expect Trump to respond with a flamethrower; after all, that’s what he does. Instead, he is papering over the rift. What does that mean?
It means he is genuinely fearful of DeSantis, and thinks appeasement (probably combined with some quiet backstabbing) has a better chance of success than open conflict.
Who is the more dangerous of the two potential candidates? For that, tune in tomorrow.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases involving a very limited use of race as a factor in college admissions. Given the composition of the Court, it seems likely that it will overturn 45 years of precedent and find this kind of affirmative action unconstitutional. How will they do it, and what will it mean for other kinds of affirmative action programs?
The admissions cases are not as easy to overturn as Roe. The Court will either have to find that diversity is not a compelling interest, notwithstanding all of those years of precedent saying that it is, that the record in these cases does not show that affirmative action leads to diversity in any meaningful sense of the word, or that times have changed since the 1970s, so historically disadvantaged groups no longer require any kind of protection.
The most limited and least embarrassing rationale is #2. My guess is the Court will go with that one in order to avoid the perception of political hackdom. The other two (particularly #3) clearly open up other forms of affirmative action to a successful legal challenge. It will just be a matter of time.
There isn’t any doubt that Putin wants to use Ukraine as a wedge to divide and dissolve both the EU and NATO. He is unlikely to succeed, however, because neither NATO nor the EU has any treaty obligations to Ukraine. He is more likely to unite the two than to divide them, since they are not going to be asked to do a whole lot to deter him.
No, in order to accomplish his objectives, Putin is going to have to be willing to use his Ukraine pressure tactics on a vulnerable EU/NATO member. That could be Poland, but a Baltic state is a more likely target.
To generate a direct conflict with a NATO member would risk escalation and a war that could destroy both Putin and Russia. Is that a gamble he is willing to take?
Let’s hope we never find out.
In what I would call a fruitful coincidence, Netflix released a movie about the making of the Munich agreement last week. I’m part of the way through it. If it says anything significant, I will let you know.
Having said that, Geneva cannot be Munich, for the following reasons:
Biden, unlike Chamberlain, is in no position to make any commitments to defend Ukraine. All he can do is pile on the pain if Putin decides to invade.
So the crisis rolls on in Ukraine.
Putin clearly sees something to gain.
De-escalate now!
Find an answer somehow.
To do otherwise would be insane.
A state-funded adoption agency has refused to permit an adoption by Jewish parents on the basis that it would violate the Christian religious beliefs of the people who run the agency. By Tennessee law, this is a valid argument.
Whoops! This is a classic example of a state assuming that the fundamental disagreement in society is between the supposed religion of “secular humanism” and all traditionally religious people, not between the various types of traditional religions. The result is a classic, and highly embarrassing, episode of anti-Semitism.
Let’s hope this case winds up in the US Supreme Court. I can’t wait to see how our doggedly Catholic right-wing justices would deal with it.