Category: Uncategorized

That’s how long the Democrats held out. In the end, however, Trump’s willingness to inflict pain on the American people exceeded the blue team’s tolerance for taking it. There was no prospect that the GOP would fold on the health insurance issue no matter how long the shutdown lasted and how loudly the voters screamed about price increases. It was time to capitulate.

And so, Trump and the Republicans have proved to the world that the Democrats have no real leverage in Congress, which is what really mattered to them. To put it more optimistically, the Republicans own everything that goes wrong over the next year. When they don’t reduce health insurance costs, it will be on them.

The blue team set a record for the longest shutdown in American history. The left can’t say they weren’t willing to fight. You can’t make much of an argument that starving SNAP beneficiaries is an acceptable tradeoff for a fruitless battle over health insurance with no exit ramp. And the Democrats actually won something valuable; the provision in the House bill prohibiting the GAO from suing Trump over impoundment is being removed. Given the Supreme Court’s most recent decision on standing and impoundment, that is a big deal.

It is suspicious that exactly enough blue team senators changed their votes. I suspect that was arranged with the leadership. A large majority, including Schumer, is still on record as supporting the shutdown. The most vulnerable members of the blue team consequently can claim that they wanted to continue to fight, which is the best of all possible worlds.

As usual, Trump declined to take any of the blame for the GOP’s losses in last week’s election. In his view, the culprits were GOP senators, for refusing to abolish the filibuster and end the shutdown; the Democrats, for seducing the voters; and the American people, for being too stupid to see they have the best economy in the history of the world.

The real question is, how much longer is the great man going to be willing to tolerate such acts of gross insubordination for his subjects? TBD.

The GOP didn’t really lose the 2020 election; Donald Trump did. The swing voters in the electorate were tired of his chaos in general, and his incoherent response to the virus in particular. By 2024, however, the voters were suffering from collective amnesia about 2020; all they could remember was the good times of 2019. Biden, on the other hand, was unjustly held completely responsible for the inflation of 2021-2023. The transactional swing voters–about 10 percent of the electorate–went Trump’s way, and the rest is history.

The pendulum swung back on Tuesday, as any reasonable person would have predicted. It will probably continue swinging left unless the economy improves, which, GOP optimists notwithstanding, is unlikely. The Democrats will probably win seats in both houses in 2026 if the election is free and fair. Then what? Trump will be a lame duck, Vance will be required to embrace every part of his unpopular legacy, and the base will be pulled in a variety of different directions by candidates outside of the administration. It will make for fascinating viewing.

On the once-again President Trump.

The election made him a big grump.

Since he won’t take the blame

We’ll have more of the same

And his party will likely get thumped.

The Democrats want to provide cost relief to the American people, strengthen their position for the coming elections, and prove that they are willing to stand up to Trump. Trump and the GOP want to show that they are in charge and that the Democrats have no meaningful leverage in Washington.

Since these objectives are not mutually exclusive, it is likely that both parties will end up with most of what they want.

For Donald Trump, Trumpism means whatever idea happens to run through his brain on any particular day, consistency and truth be damned. J.D. Vance, on the other hand, is more systematic; he has evolved into MAGA’s most prominent ideologist, similar to the role that Suslov played in the Kremlin during the Brezhnev years. Vance is closely associated with a variety of strains of New Right thinking, including, but not limited to, natalism, legacy Americans, reactionary Catholicism, and “common good” constitutionalism. How will this play out in 2028?

The problem for J.D. is that his wife is an immigrant from India, a Hindu, and an accomplished career woman. She is the refutation of everything he claims to stand for. Don’t think for a minute that the other GOP candidates will be too polite to point that out to the electorate during the 2028 primaries, assuming they actually take place.

Every time some minor left-wing goofball says or does something extremely woke, it shows up on Fox News a few days later as a Democratic Party position and becomes part of the national discussion. When prominent white nationalists say or do something outrageous and the GOP leadership refuses to repudiate it, however, nothing happens. It is a major structural advantage for the GOP. Why doesn’t the dog bark?

Because the leading right-wing media make no pretense of being anything but Trump supporters, but liberal TV networks and newspapers make a genuine effort to be independent. They can’t be relied upon to pump out the message that the entire GOP is neo-Nazi even if it would benefit their side because they know it isn’t true.

Young progressives see Mamdani’s victory as the beginning of a golden age for themselves and NYC’s downtrodden. Many Republicans, for their part, can’t wait to tie the entire Democratic Party to Mamdani’s “socialism.” Will either of them get their wish?

Probably not. Whatever the merits of Mamdani’s progressive agenda items, he can’t make most of them happen without help from Albany that is unlikely to materialize. As to the GOP, tying moderate Democrats to Mamdani won’t work, because what happens in NYC has little practical impact elsewhere. Only Fox watchers are going to buy that argument, and they aren’t swing voters in 2026.

Spanberger and Sherrill were roundly criticized for lacking a positive vision and putting too much emphasis on Trump, but it worked. Will the same tactics prevail in 2026 and 2028, assuming we have free and fair elections?

In 2026, yes. Trump is the factor that unites and inspires the entire Democratic coalition. Presenting a new, positive vision of America is potentially divisive. The easier and more successful alternative is to limit the discussion to complaints about the unsatisfactory status quo.

In 2028, no. In general terms, there will be two competing platforms available to blue team primary voters. Moderates will argue for a united front against Trumpism, and a return to the status quo ante to the maximum extent possible; progressives, on the other hand, will insist that the new powers granted to Trump by the Supreme Court should be used to build a more fair and equal America. Who will win that argument? At this point, I have no idea.

Donald Trump hates blue America. He wishes us ill. He bullies us to prove he is the boss. Why wouldn’t blue America come out in force to oppose him, just as the Canadian and Australian voters did? That’s exactly what happened yesterday.

But that is far from the last word on the subject. Trump won’t back down and try to work with his more moderate opponents; he will double down and try to crush them. Just how far is he willing to go? That’s the real question for his presidency.

More than any single person–and that includes his boss–Dick Cheney was responsible for the Iraq war. The war was conceived on false premises and was executed incompetently. We are still feeling the repercussions from Cheney’s failures today, not the least of which revolve around the GOP’s acceptance of “America First.”

But that was not the end of the story. Cheney viewed himself as an heir of Ronald Reagan, not a precursor of Trump. He openly deplored “America First” and Trump’s violations of liberal democratic norms. He had the courage to attack Trump when few others in his party would do so. For that, he deserves our praise.

It’s a mixed legacy, to be sure.

Ezra Klein and the NYT Editorial Board agree; the Democrats need to become a big tent party to win elections. That means tolerating opinions on issues such as trans rights, gun control, and abortion that are anathema to progressives. But the tent can become so big that the party ceases to stand for anything. What blue team values are non-negotiable?

Here is a tentative list:

1. America should subscribe to the MLK/Obama vision of a multi-ethnic liberal democracy that welcomes people of all races, religions, and sexual orientations.
2. Discrimination on the basis of religion or immutable characteristics is wrong.
3. The current welfare state should be protected to the maximum extent possible.
4. We should be looking to create the economy of the future, not to recreate the economy of the past.
5. The immigration system should be humane as well as orderly.
6. America should maintain good relations with other liberal democracies in order to leverage its strength against hostile authoritarian states.
7. America should remain a liberal democracy. The party must resist efforts to create an authoritarian state.

That’s about it. Everything else is open to debate.

The Biden years should have been the high point of Bernie Sanders’ career; after all, the pandemic mitigation spending spree was largely his agenda. The expansion of the welfare state reduced misery dramatically and promoted growth that was the envy of the rest of the world. But it also increased inflation and interest rates, which the country hated. The blue team’s loss in 2024 was the result.

Bernie’s program hasn’t changed. He doesn’t seem to understand that, if the Democrats implement it without funding it, it will result in significant increases in the deficit, interest rates, and inflation, and if they do fund it, the middle class will have to accept large tax increases, because billionaires simply don’t have enough money to pay for such large expansions of the welfare state. Are these outcomes palatable to the American electorate? History says no.

We are starting to see some evidence of resistance to the Trump agenda from GOP senators. Should we take it seriously? Here is my analysis:

1. AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS: The Trump program of deportations and tariffs has always been completely inconsistent with the interests of farmers and ranchers. He’s making it worst by talking about increasing imports of Argentinian beef. The grumbling hasn’t translated into votes, however, and the rural areas are too invested in Trump to oppose him unless the economic problems go on for years, which is possible.
2. FREE TRADE: Ronald Reagan still lives! Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, and Paul are completely opposed to Trump’s arbitrary tariff regime and have had the audacity to say so in public. That could matter if the farmers get mad enough to take action or if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs. Otherwise, Mike Johnson will make sure no such votes take place in the House.
3. FILIBUSTER: This is the biggest one. The GOP senators understand that the McConnell Project gives them an enduring structural advantage, and they don’t want to give it up in Trump’s short-term interests. Don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

On the DOJ head they call Pam.

For her partisanship she’s been slammed.

But Trump has her back

So she stays on attack

Legal norms and procedures be damned.