Category: Uncategorized

The only point of a convention in the 21st century is to sell the candidates to the public, right? So why did Trump’s speech start well after 10:30 and run past midnight, and why was Biden on so late last night?

A cynic would say that the less the public sees of those two elderly gentlemen, the better. If the blue team can’t impose enough discipline to have Harris and Walz finish by 11:00 EDT, however, that would meet my definition of insanity. It makes no sense to fill valuable time with shots of blathering nonentities and partying delegates when America needs an introduction to the candidates on the most favorable ground possible.

A few days after Biden announced that he would not accept the nomination, he came out in favor of Supreme Court reform. Was that a coincidence?

No, because the campaign changed the minute Harris became the nominee. Biden, fittingly enough for a man of his age, was running as a genuine constitutional conservative against a guy who wants to trash American liberal democracy. Supreme Court reform was inconsistent with that message of stability and preservation. Harris is a new, younger face with a program of change, albeit of the incremental type. The blue team agenda cannot advance very far without a different Supreme Court. Hence, the shift in position.

In other words, I predicted Supreme Court reform would become a major issue for the left the day after the election. Biden’s withdrawal simply accelerated the process a few months.

Reactionaries are suddenly in a tizzy about the birth rate. Should we take their concern at face value?

No, because of the limits on it. They still don’t want immigrant children. They don’t support IVF. And they certainly don’t want teenagers to start having sex and kids out of wedlock. Those children are a burden on society–that is to say, on their wallets.

The great birth rate panic is really a proxy for the desire for the Godly Society, as I described it in a previous post. Trump has upended the old rules and made fundamental change in American society look possible again. It is now imaginable to the right that the federal government could use its power to force people to live in the sexual world of the 1950s again. More children–the right kind of children–would be the inevitable result.

Lindsey Graham is worried. He has come to Bedminster to talk about the campaign. Trump keeps him waiting for an hour this time.

T: Linseed! Why are you here? Why aren’t you out campaigning for me?

G: I’m concerned about your campaign.

T: Why? I’m way ahead. I can’t lose. Unless, of course, the Democrats cheat again. We’ll be ready for that this time.

G: The polls say you’re behind now.

T: The polls have always been wrong about me. Don’t pay any attention to them. The country loves me.

G: They might be right this time.

T: America is not going to vote for a black woman. Or Asian, or whatever she is today. It depends on the audience.

G: That’s part of the problem. You’re spending too much time on identity stuff, and not on the issues. You should be talking about inflation, not giving Harris nicknames.

T: That’s what you don’t get, Linseed. The base wants entertainment. It doesn’t care about issues. It wants me to be me, because it has faith in me. Inflation is boring; criminal illegal aliens aren’t.

G: The base isn’t America. You need votes from the center to win.

T: I’ll win as long as the base remains loyal and votes. Business will follow because it has nowhere else to go. The rest of the country is a minority. That’s why I always win.

G: What about 2020?

T: I won in 2020. You forget–the election was rigged.

G: Oh, right. I forgot. There are reports that the crowds at your rallies are getting bored. They want to hear something new. Something that will improve their lives, not just yours.

T: Let’s put it this way. When the Stones are out on tour, do the crowds want to hear “Angry?” No! They want to hear “Satisfaction.” That’s why I give my fans the classics. They still love them. That’s why my crowds are much larger than Harris’. Much larger. Trust me on that.

G: How many times can you say nasty things about illegal immigrants? That gets old.

T: Not to my fans.

G: And do you have to call immigrants “animals?” That makes you sound like Hitler. The left thinks you mean it.

T: Maybe I do, and maybe I don’t. That’s the great thing about being an insult comic–nobody can really tell. I can tell the donor class that I don’t mean it. Who knows?

G: Well, do you mean it?

T: You’ll find out after I win the election.

G: Just remember–the electorate in 2024 isn’t the same one you won with in 2016. A lot of really old white guys who voted for you back then are dead. You can’t take anything for granted, particularly with Biden out of the race.

T: Yeah, that really pisses me off. He was entitled to run against me, and I was entitled to kick his ass. That was a crime against him, and America, and me. It was election interference. It was yet another attempt to rig the system against me. Guess what? I’m going to win anyway. As I said, America isn’t going to vote for a woman–particularly a black and Asian woman. It wants a strong leader. That’s me.

G: I hope you’re right. I’m not so sure. (He leaves)

Biden initially positioned himself as the most moderate of the Democratic candidates in 2020, but he decided he would run as a new FDR after he received the nomination. This was for three reasons: he needed to maintain unity with the left to accomplish the overriding objective of defeating Trump; the pandemic made huge public investments and social programs that would have been unthinkable under normal circumstances plausible, and even inevitable; and the left had learned from the Obama years that it was essential to go big early in order to avoid a sclerotic recovery and increased levels of inequality. In the end, Biden’s efforts to fundamentally reshape the economy failed, due to a lack of votes in the Senate and inflation. He made a difference, particularly with regard to green energy and infrastructure, but he was no FDR.

Harris has shown no inclination to take on the dollar store thus far. Her proposals to juice the economy have been small-bore and targeted at particularly significant voting blocks. Why? Because there is no scenario in which she would have enough votes in Congress to do more than that. This in turn is a reflection of the fact that the electorate, for all of its grumbling, is not violently opposed to the dollar store, which, for all of its shortcomings, does have benefits (low prices for imported consumer goods; high stock values) for the average American.

If you were to use one word to describe J.D. Vance’s vision for America, it would be “sacrifice.” Women would sacrifice their careers and their reproductive freedom to stay home and have lots of kids. Men would lead households with far less income than they have today. LGTBQ people would go back in the closet. Businesses would be much less profitable. Consumers would pay higher prices and have fewer choices. Unhappy couples would be forced to remain together for the sake of their many children. Some degree of censorship of the internet and the MSM would probably be necessary. In short, material prosperity, freedom, and opportunity would take a back seat to stability and traditional religious values.

The Democrats had the Great Society; Vance wants the Godly Society, as defined by Thomas Aquinas. It would look like something between Ireland in the 1950s and Franco’s Spain, depending on how much force was required to bring it about.

The problem with this program, of course, is that it has very limited support within the Republican Party and absolutely none elsewhere. Even Trump doesn’t really buy into it. So how can it happen? Through patience, a large measure of stealth and misdirection, and the abuse of federal power on a massive scale.

The Trump program of deterrence through unlawful cruelty inevitably led to a backlash that shaped the 2020 election. Harris was caught up in it; like all of the Democratic candidates other than Biden, she took positions on the border during the debates that she undoubtedly regrets today. When she became VP, however, she followed the Biden line without public dissent.

Biden wanted a system that was humane and generous, but orderly. In spite of his best efforts, circumstances overwhelmed him: the end of the pandemic took away his best reason to keep migrants in Mexico; political turbulence and climate change all over the world made immigration more attractive; left-wing legal assaults on his program were largely successful; the system was underfunded; and the GOP was more interested in scoring political points than in moving legislation to improve the system.

Today, the border is the biggest issue in GOP commercials all over the country. Harris is fighting back by touting her past as a prosecutor and by blaming Trump for the failure of the border legislation. Will that work, and does her new hard line represent her true position on the issue? As to the first question, the answer is no, but she only needs to blunt the attacks, not to make them disappear; as to the second, Harris doesn’t appear to have strong convictions on immigration, so don’t expect a sudden shift to open borders if she wins unless the wind starts blowing hard from the left, which is unlikely.

I see no reason to believe that Harris disagrees with Biden on the fundamentals of his Middle East policy. Even if she did, it would be suicide to abandon Israel altogether. As a result, it won’t happen.

But I expect to see differences in nuance, partly in an effort to unite the party, and partly out of conviction. I think Harris will tell the world that she is completely dedicated to the defense of Israel, but that she has no intention of handing Bibi a blank check. America will protect Israel from attacks by Hezbollah and Iran, but offer no guarantees of support for offensive operations, particularly those that unnecessarily endanger civilians.

That is as it should be. It is not in the interest of America to play Imperial Germany to Israel’s Austria-Hungary.

Here is what I would say if I were in her position:

1. TRY TO LOOK BOTH STRONG AND GLAMOROUS: Four years ago, I conducted a thought experiment as to whether American men would vote for Angelina Jolie for president. I concluded that they would. Harris should be aspiring to a subdued version of that image.
2. EMBRACE IDENTITY, BUT TRANSCEND IT: Say something like “I’m half Asian, half black, but 100 percent American.” The public will love it.
3. RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE REAGAN QUESTION: Americans are far better off than they were in 2020. Lay it out and explain why, focusing to a large extent on Trump’s chaotic response to the pandemic.
4. PROSECUTE THE CASE AGAINST TRUMP: In clear language, set out the man’s crimes against the public, starting with events that occurred before his presidency. Don’t pull punches here.
5. DRAW CLEAR DISTINCTIONS ON THE ISSUES: Talk about climate change, guns, abortion, Ukraine, Gaza, inflation, the border, and financial help for Americans who need it. Explain how Trump’s ideas will only leave America poorer, weaker, and alone in a dangerous world.
6. FINISH BY DESCRIBING TRUMP’S VISION FOR AMERICA IN THE 1950S, AND EXPLAIN WHY WE NEED TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE, INSTEAD: Trump doesn’t have a plausible way of getting us back to 1950, but if he did, he would be imposing second-class status on tens of millions of Americans. The country has always looked to the future, not the past. It must continue to do so.

A Trump commercial on the alleged failures of Biden and Harris on immigration prominently features footage of Harris dancing in a slightly goofy way. What is the point of that, and will it work?

Trump is clearly attempting to show that Harris is a fundamentally unserious person who is unaware of or indifferent to the suffering that illegal immigration supposedly causes the American worker. I don’t think the average person will get that impression from the footage, however. I think she just looks like someone who, on occasion, has a good time. That’s normal, not stupid or weird.

It is fair to describe Donald Trump as a man of no convictions when it comes to abortion; he was pro-choice most of his life, but he turned pro-life in order to win the nomination in 2016, and now he’s Mr. States’ Rights. His only real motivation is to use the issue to win power. J.D. Vance, on the other hand, is genuinely anti-abortion, but he chose to swallow his scruples in order to further his political ambitions. I will leave it to the reader to decide which of these positions is morally worse.

Harris, on the other hand, is a conviction politician when it comes to reproductive rights. Does that matter? Yes, because it means you can trust what she says on that issue. Trump and Vance will change positions on a dime if it serves their interests. No promise they make, regardless of how public it is, will be worth the paper it is printed on.

To the left wing of the Democratic Party, Obama was a failed president. Why? Because, when given a huge majority in Congress and the opportunity to fundamentally remake America–to, in my terminology, put an end to the dollar store economy–Obama bailed out the banks and increased inequality. He asked for a stimulus that was way too small and then embraced austerity almost immediately, thus prolonging the recession unnecessarily. Biden, on the other hand, went big with his stimulus and embraced the concept of dramatically reducing inequality during the pandemic. He was the more consequential president.

Jonathan Chait is having none of it. In his view, Obama was far more important. His successes in staving off economic disaster in 2009 will be remembered far more favorably by historians than by the left. Obamacare is a far more significant piece of legislation than the IRA or the infrastructure bill. He accomplished this by moving to the center, unlike Biden, who moved to the left after he was elected. The lesson of this for Harris is that she, too, should move to the center.

Is either side reading history correctly? I would say no. The left is wrong to undervalue Obama’s successes in saving the American economy without much of a playbook in 2009. Yes, he bailed out the banks and worked with capitalists instead of smashing them, but that was the price of regaining economic stability; reducing inequality by turning the Great Recession into a depression and impoverishing rich and poor alike was not a legitimate objective. It is not accurate, however, to suggest that the successes of the Obama years were the result of moving to the center; Obama only managed to legislate when he had the huge majority between 2008 and 2010. After that, it was pretty much status quo.

It is true that Biden moved to the left, at least in rhetorical terms, in the late stages of his campaign and during the first two years of his presidency. It is also true, however, that he only had a tiny majority in both houses, and that his legislative triumphs were the result of negotiations with Manchin and Sinema and even with some Republicans. He was actually a more bipartisan president than Obama, the leftist economic rhetoric notwithstanding, because he had to be.

What can Harris learn from the supposed distinction between Obama and Biden? Not a damn thing. If she wins, she will be lucky if she has even the tiny Biden majority in Congress. She won’t be able to get much meaningful legislation through the system. Her presidency will look like the second term of Obama and Clinton–a little bit of incremental change accomplished through negotiations with centrist Democrats and a few reasonable Republicans. Her biggest accomplishment will be to keep Trump out of power, not to put an end to the dollar store economy.

Ronald Reagan famously benefited from the euphoria arising from American successes in the 1984 Summer Olympics. Could Harris profit from a similar vibe after Paris?

Not to the same extent, certainly; the 1984 Olympics uniquely were held at home during a period of rapid recovery after the Fed significantly reduced interest rates. But the ambience associated with the Olympics–Americans of all colors and creeds happily rooting for victorious athletes representing a united country–is inconsistent with Trump’s dystopian vision of the nation. Anything that persuades the undecided that America isn’t going to hell in a handbasket has to help at least a little bit.

In an act of breathtaking cynicism, Trump suddenly announced he supported eliminating income taxes on tips while he was in Nevada. His real purpose, of course, was to win the state, not to help workers. Not to be outdone, Harris followed suit about a week ago. Does this idea make sense, other than politically?

The answer to that question is an emphatic no. First of all, it would blow yet another large hole in the budget. Second, it would create an artificial distinction between two essentially identical forms of income that would cause employers and employees alike to game the system. All over America, service providers would see their wages slashed, and the demands for tax-free tips would become deafening, even possibly from doctors and lawyers. Finally, from the perspective of a consumer, the pressure to tip people who clearly don’t deserve it has become unbearable. This would make it a thousand times worse. Is that what we really want?

C: The last time I saw you, you were extremely depressed about your options with the election. Has anything changed?

M: Things are better, but hardly good.

C: Let’s break that down into its two components. Why are things better?

M: Because Biden is out of the picture. He clearly wasn’t physically or mentally capable of governing America for another four years, and he didn’t have any use for businessmen like me.

C: Is Harris an improvement?

M: I don’t know yet. She can’t be much worse.

C: So why are things hardly good?

M: Let’s talk about my alternatives. I’ll start with Harris.

C: OK.

M: I don’t have any idea what she stands for. My guess is that she’s sort of an opportunistic centrist who will say anything to get elected. I’ve heard some things about her being more friendly to business than Biden–particularly with regard to Silicon Valley–but she hasn’t said anything meaningful about the economy that sets her apart from him. Until she tells me otherwise, I have to assume she supports raising my taxes and sticking her nose in my business. I obviously don’t support that.

C: So she has a lot to prove to you?

M: Exactly.

C: What about Trump?

M: He wouldn’t raise my taxes, but he would be a disaster in two different ways.

C: Which are?

M: First, his tariffs. Cars are built with lots of imported parts. The tariffs will raise car prices, which will cost me business and money.

C: Makes sense. And the second one?

M: His phobia about electric cars. Our company is committed to EVs. We can’t be a world leader without them. Trump hates them. He wants to rebuild the economy of the past. He’ll just crush our business and leave everybody poorer.

C: But Trump has eased up on EVs since he got Musk’s support. Doesn’t that make you feel better?

M: No, because I don’t sell Teslas, and Musk is only in it for himself. There’s nothing to prevent Trump from taking actions in office that make money for Musk and hurt all of his competitors. Besides, you can’t trust anything Trump says about anything. He could go back to bashing EVs at any moment.

C: So who is the lesser of the evils?

M: I don’t know yet. I need to hear a lot more from Harris. I probably won’t decide for another month or so.

C: Thanks for your time.