Category: Uncategorized

Between Trump and the Chief Justice John

All pretense of friendship is gone.

The Supremes helped him out

Though he screams and he pouts

‘Cause the issue on DREAM is now gone.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? As the mayor of a diverse city with international connections, I would say yes, but it’s debatable.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Yes. She was a Biden supporter from the beginning.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? There is no way of knowing until we see her on a national stage.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? No.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? No.
6. DOES SHE BRING SOMETHING POSITIVE TO THE CAMPAIGN? Strong connections to the African-American community, and probably a few additional votes in Georgia, but we have no idea how effective she would be on the national stage, and the possibility of white backlash over police issues is significant.

THE VERDICT: Another high risk choice for a campaign that shouldn’t be taking too many chances.

Donald Trump owes whatever chances he has of being re-elected to the Fed. Without Powell’s quick and decisive action, the economy would be in far worse straits than it is today. Don’t expect Trump to give him any credit, however. As far as he’s concerned, Powell is just another one of his mistaken appointments.

In a similar vein, the Chief Justice has done him a great favor by supporting the Dreamers in the DACA case. By doing so, he gave Trump another rallying cry to fire up his base in November, while taking deportations off the table prior to the election. Had the Court found against DACA, Trump would have felt compelled to hold the Dreamers hostage in exchange for the wall and misguided limitations on immigration; the Democrats would have resisted and played the issue for all it was worth to the electorate.

Don’t expect him to show any gratitude for this stroke of luck, either.

There is a very interesting op-ed by Russell Moore in today’s NYT. The gist of it is that Moore views this week’s Supreme Court decisions on LGBTQ rights as an assault on the freedom of religious conservatives. He asks Americans to conduct their debates on issues touching on religious principles in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and the protection of religious freedom. He concludes by arguing that if these kinds of decisions are decided in favor of the side with the votes, it will ultimately hurt the left as much as the right.

There are three elements of his argument that require a response:

1. Whether in an effort to pander to the left-leaning readers of the NYT, or because he really sees conservative Christians in this light, he makes a big effort to identify the rights and interests of Christians with Muslims and Jews–much smaller, and historically powerless, religious minorities in this country. Do the historically dominant right-wing Christians really feel as isolated and embattled as Muslims and Jews in today’s cultural environment? It seems absurd, but there you are.
2. Moore’s warning about religious coercion is difficult to square with the right’s passionate support of legislation banning abortion, although I suppose he would (absurdly) frame the issue as one of “freedom” for fetuses.
3. Moore doesn’t really spell out the negative consequences to secularists if, in his view, religious freedom is not respected, but I think the implication is clear: if you don’t carve out safe spaces for our beliefs, we will retaliate by voting for Trump, or even more forceful authoritarian personalities, in order to protect our rights. We care more about our values than the health of liberal democracy. We will stop at nothing to use the system to win elections, and then our raw power will prevail over your paper rights. Cross us at your peril.

I believe #3 is, in fact, the prevailing opinion among millions of American Christians. The best way to deal with it in the short run is to give them the safe spaces they demand. Let the millennials sort it out in the long run; it won’t be as big a problem in 20 years as it is today.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? She is a two-term member of the House and has executive experience with a large police department. I would say yes, but it’s an arguable point.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Pelosi clearly views her as a team player, so, yes.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? There is no way to answer that question today. She doesn’t have any experience campaigning on a national level.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? No.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? No.
6. WOULD SHE BRING SOMETHING POSITIVE TO THE CAMPAIGN? She would help with African-Americans, and she might sway a few votes in Florida. Since we’ve never seen her campaign on a national level, however, we really don’t know if she would be a net positive or negative.

THE VERDICT: Given her lack of experience, she would be a risky choice for a risk averse campaign. There is no obvious reason to prefer her to Harris.

Donald Trump is so ignorant, he doesn’t know that Finland is an independent country. He sucks up to dictators, and attempts to intervene in criminal investigations touching their interests, in an effort to curry favor with them. Everything he does is directed towards his re-election. He asked the Chinese to help him win in November. Even his acolytes make fun of him behind his back. It’s not a pretty picture.

Of course, we’ve known all of this for years–only the details have changed. The real significance of this is that, in spite of the incredibly dismal picture the people in his administration have painted, HIS BASE STILL SUPPORTS HIM 100 PERCENT. No amount of incompetence or corruption or authoritarian behavior can change their minds. He’s a strong man and a disruptor, and he’s on their side against the foreigners and the libs; that’s all they need to know.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? Yes. She is a US senator, and she has executive experience in an important state office.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE: Yes. Like Biden, she ran as a realo, not a fundi.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? Yes. Age will not be a problem, and her combination of glamor and toughness would appeal to some white men.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? No. The GOP isn’t going to win a Senate seat in bright blue California.
5. IS SHE VETTED ON A NATIONAL BASIS? Yes.
6. DOES SHE BRING ANYTHING TO THE CAMPAIGN? Yes–she’s a good speaker, and she will appeal to the young and minorities. Her failings during the campaign revolved around her decision to run as a general election candidate too early. She was not the only candidate to fall into this trap, and it wouldn’t be a problem in November.

THE VERDICT: She is the most logical choice for the job. If Biden still harbors resentments over her attack on him during the debate, he needs to get over it.

If there is one thing that Donald Trump wants us to know about him, it is that he is a strong man. He swaggers and stomps. He sticks out his chin and his chest, and waves his arms. He uses harsh language, and appear to mean it. It is all designed to give comfort to those who see him as the indispensable bulwark against change and evil outside forces. It frequently works.

Capriciousness, mindless bluster, and bullying are not, in reality, evidence of strength, but it can be difficult to sell that to the electorate. What we need for the undecideds is visual proof of his feebleness and cowardice. Fortunately, we now have both.

Barr’s admission that Trump was led to safety in the White House bunker and the tape of Trump walking slowly and gingerly down the ramp at West Point are gifts from God to Biden. One hopes they will feature prominently in his commercials. They will hit the man on golf cart precisely where it hurts.

My observations on yesterday’s LGBTQ decisions:

1. I have noted on previous occasions that simply dividing the Supreme Court into two ideological factions is accurate, but an oversimplification. These decisions support that proposition.
2. Don’t expect this to be the beginning of a trend in which the Court moves to the left. My guess is that these decisions are intended to some extent to provide “balance” for some provocative right-leaning opinions that will come out shortly.
3. This is the reactionaries’ worst nightmare: a decision written by a Trump appointee that effectively imposes PC values on them. There are no carve-outs or safe spaces left for conservative Christians in this field. They will go nuts as a result.
4. Will Trump be blamed? I’m guessing not, but time will tell.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? Yes.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Yes. She never attacked Biden or really said anything inconsistent with his positions during the debates.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? Yes, although she would have to strengthen her relationship with minorities significantly between now and then.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT A SENATE SEAT AT RISK? Yes. Minnesota is not a bright blue state.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? Yes.
6. DOES SHE BRING SOMETHING VALUABLE TO THE CAMPAIGN? She appeals to moderates, but Biden fills that lane by himself. Picking her would offend some of his African-American supporters, who need to turn out for him to win in November.

THE VERDICT: She would make a solid VP once in office, but her campaign negatives outweigh the positives at this point in time, and putting her Senate seat at risk would be a mistake.

I’ve never interviewed Bill Barr, and I almost certainly never will. If I did, however, it would run something like this:

(I meet with Barr at his office at the DOJ)

C: I have noted lots of Catholic memorabilia on your wall. I expected that, and it leads me to my first series of questions.

B: Fine. I’m always happy to talk about my faith.

C: You’re obviously a fan of Thomas More. In the Cromwell trilogy, Hilary Mantel portrays More as a fanatical heretic burner. What’s your reaction to that?

B: More was a man of his time. Like most people, he believed that the souls of his countrymen were in danger if he didn’t stamp out heresy. He did what he thought he had to do.

C: But he is viewed as a martyr by Catholics for his opposition to the government’s religious policy. The government had good reason to view him as a threat. Can’t you argue there is no difference between the two?

B: More stood for the continuity of Christendom. He had history and right on his side. That was the difference.

C: So it’s OK to burn heretics as long as you’ think have history on your side?

B: That was a long time ago. The world has changed. We don’t do that anymore.

C: Have you ever read a description of what a heretic burning was like?

B: Yes.

C: And you still think it was OK?

B: The painful death of one person here or there is not the big picture. The big picture is using the power of the state to maintain a godly, virtuous society. Heretics were viewed as spiritual poison to the whole. There was reason, at the time, to believe that. To some extent, there still is.

C: You have a position that is roughly analogous to More’s as Chancellor. In a perfect world, would you burn heretics?

B: In a perfect world, there would be no heretics.

C: Fair enough. Let me change topics slightly. Have you read the Vermeule article in The Atlantic about “common good constitutionalism?”

B: Yes.

C: What’s your reaction?

B: I’m sympathetic, obviously, but it’s a bridge too far. Straying from originalism is too dangerous. It would open up arguments for the left that we haven’t even thought of yet.

C: So you’re an originalist? You admire Scalia, I suppose?

B: Of course!

C: Prominent constitutional historians view Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case as an absolute masterpiece of legal and historical bullshit. How do you respond to that?

B: Lots of people have lots of opinions about everything. Scalia’s was the one that mattered. The winners write the history.

C: The prevailing opinion of you on the left is that you have a corrupt deal with Trump whereby you operate as his personal attorney and clean up his messes in exchange for the right to pursue your own ideological agenda. How do you respond to that?

B: I don’t deny that I have an agenda. Everyone in this business does. I also don’t deny that I owe a degree to loyalty to Trump as long as I work in his government. I do deny that I serve as Trump’s personal attorney. Everything I do is, at least in my view, consistent with the public interest.

C: Don’t you worry, like Ross Douthat, that your concept of conservatism will be damaged by its association with Trump, given his innumerable personal flaws?

B: I don’t judge Donald Trump’s character. That’s for God to decide. What I know is that we have a similar interest in supporting traditional ideas and morality in this country. As long as we’re on the same team there, I have no problem serving him. As to the future of conservatism, I live in the present. The future can take care of itself.

C: You are a passionate proponent of executive power. What actions would you take to clamp down on individual constitutional rights in the event of an unpopular foreign war? Would you use the emergency and your ideas about the unitary executive to muzzle the media?

B: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t deal in hypotheticals.

C: Thank you for your time.

1. IS SHE QUALIFIED? Absolutely. Other than Biden himself, it’s hard to imagine anyone with better qualifications than Warren.
2. IS SHE IDEOLOGICALLY COMPATIBLE? Prior to the pandemic, the clear answer to this question would have been no. Today, probably yes. Warren and her policy plans will inevitably play a large role in a Biden administration whether she leaves the Senate or not.
3. COULD SHE RUN AND WIN IN 2024? Run, yes; win, not so much. She would still have all of the identity issues that plagued her in 2020, and she will be 75.
4. WOULD PICKING HER PUT HER SENATE SEAT AT RISK? Yes. A Republican senator from Massachusetts could flip the Senate to the GOP, thereby putting an effective end to the Biden agenda.
5. HAS SHE BEEN VETTED NATIONALLY? Yes. She has been a prominent figure in national politics for years. There are no new skeletons in her closet.
6. WOULD SHE BE A POSITIVE FORCE IN THE CAMPAIGN? Yes. She has a gift for getting under Trump’s skin, and she would take Mike Pence apart in the VP debate.

THE VERDICT: Warren can do the greatest amount of good by campaigning hard for Biden, remaining in the Senate, and keeping an open line of communication with the White House as to policy and personnel issues after Biden takes office.

Thus far, the politics of the protests have gone as well as one could hope. The injustice of the Floyd death is apparent even to right-wingers, and Trump has been (correctly) viewed as an arsonist, not a firefighter by a large majority of the general public. Biden’s lead in the polls has consequently increased. It’s 1968 in reverse.

But potential danger lies ahead. America is going to lose interest in the protests barring any additional dramatic episodes of police brutality. The right will find martyr policemen to publicize; that’s just a matter of time. And, above all, the left is likely to overreach. The country already rejects the notion of defunding the police; fortunately, Biden and Pelosi have already put that one to bed on a national level. My bigger concern is that the focus of the argument will turn from overly aggressive police tactics that people like me find deplorable to concepts of white guilt, privilege, and reparations. On that road, my friends, electoral disaster lies.

The Republicans have decided simply to recycle their 2016 platform, which is both absurd and completely logical. The absurdity is that it uses a number of attack lines on the “incumbent” that would also apply to Trump. The logical part is that the GOP is no longer a party with any ideas; it just stands for supporting Trump, regardless of what he might say on any given day.

Who needs ideas when you have Orange Jesus? The Word has been made flesh!

In the end, Biden is going to make this decision based largely on personal chemistry. That’s a subjective standard that defies analysis from outside. The rest of the criteria, however, are more objective, and can be listed:

1. Is she qualified to be president on the first day if something happens to me?
2. Are we ideologically compatible?
3. Can I imagine her running for president, and winning, in 2024?
4. Would picking her create the risk of losing a Senate seat?
5. Has she been vetted on a national basis?
6. Does she bring something positive to the campaign?

The unusual criterion is #3. Biden knows he is a transitional figure, and may only serve one term if he is elected. There would be no point in identifying a successor who couldn’t carry on his legacy.

How do the contenders stack up? I will address that throughout the week.