Category: Uncategorized

A few years ago, I wrote a post in which I argued that, since rural residents were the only true Americans, they should be entitled to additional votes for their livestock. The post was, of course, satire.

J.D. Vance has advocated that parents with children should be entitled to additional votes. He has since dismissed this proposal as a thought experiment, by which he means that it is impracticable, not that he considers it conceptually wrong.

Is there any meaningful difference between my satire and his thought experiment?

If Trump wins the election, Vance will be his heir apparent, and DeSantis will be lost in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future. But what if Trump loses? Will DeSantis be able to win over the base in 2028 by saying “I told you so?”

I doubt it, for three reasons. First, the base has never shown any inclination to forgive disloyalty, which DeSantis displayed by running against Trump before his time. Second, DeSantis will retain all of the personality defects that made him a poor candidate the last time around. Finally, Vance has economic ideas that, whether you agree with them or not (I obviously don’t), are actually intended to help struggling American workers. DeSantis has never shown that he wants to improve anyone’s life; all he wants to do is stick it to woke people.

I’ve been watching the Olympics since 1968. The most memorable games for me were in 1972, both for good and for ill, but I have at least shards of memories of all of them.

1984 was unique in that it induced euphoria among Americans that ultimately had implications for the election. For the quality of the spectacle and the competition, however, you could make a very good case that this one was the best in my lifetime.

The French–left, right, and center alike–have reason to be proud. Partisan strife will resume tomorrow.

Ezra Klein argues that Harris has flipped a switch. Biden was determined to win by reminding the American people of how big and bad and dangerous Trump is; Harris is trying to diminish him and make him look bizarre and contemptible. In other words, Biden called Trump a man on horseback; Harris says he’s a man on golf cart. Is Klein right, and can the new tactics work?

As to the first question, everything I see says yes. I have mixed feelings about the second. On the one hand, I have pointed out on numerous occasions that debate opponents who patronize Trump have the most success. In addition, the notion that Trump will behave even more outrageously to get attention, and thus offend centrist voters even further, makes some sense. On the other hand, it is a mistake to completely disregard the danger that Trump presents to liberal democracy in America. If you’re not genuinely afraid of what a Trump presidency could mean for us, you haven’t been paying attention.

Vance and Trump are already starting to raise questions about Walz’ military service. Are we about to see a repeat of the successful campaign against John Kerry?

No, for three reasons. First, Walz is not at the top of the ticket. Second, Kerry was running during wartime, so he was compelled to put his military credentials at the center of his campaign. Walz is on the ticket because he comes from a rural area and sounds like everyone’s favorite uncle; the military part is just gravy. Finally, Trump, you will recall, is “Cadet Bone Spurs.” What can he say about Walz except to thank him for his service?

The rising cost of housing, higher education, and child care was a thorn in the side of Americans long before Biden, and is worse now. Why do we have these problems, and what is the GOP proposing to do about them?

Housing costs went up dramatically during the pandemic as a result of an increased demand for additional living space. In addition, supply chain problems were an issue, the lack of construction workers slowed down building projects, and local and state land use regulations drove up costs by reducing densities and limiting the amount of land available for development. The issue with higher education is the business model of private universities, which have created large bureaucracies and built resort-like facilities in an attempt to attract wealthy students, while redistributing some of the excess to deserving poor students. With regard to child care, I honestly don’t know why the problem exists; it certainly isn’t high unit labor costs.

Simply throwing money at these problems won’t work. In some cases, deregulation could be a big part of the answer; that falls cleanly into the wheelhouse of the right. The GOP isn’t proposing any solutions to the problems, however; its “solution” is to have faith in Donald Trump, the well-known magician, who will actually make things worse by engaging in culture wars with our universities, deporting construction workers, supporting exclusionary zoning in suburbs, and cutting federal payments to parents.

Let’s hope the GOP’s lack of interest in policy is noted during the campaign, because it matters.

By most objective standards, life in America is pretty good right now. The unemployment rate is low, the markets are doing well, and inflation is under control. We are funding wars in Gaza and Ukraine, but not fighting them ourselves. Sure, we have issues, but nothing beyond the realm of normal political discussion. The system can address them in the normal course of business, and things will be even better.

Not according to Trump and the GOP, however. They believe we are one step away from the apocalypse. World War III is just around the corner. We are already in a recession, and the inflation rate is comparable to that of Germany in 1923. Trans and woke people are destroying our schools and corrupting our kids. Illegal immigrants are running wild across the country, committing violent crimes and sucking up what little housing is available. Only a strongman can save us from the chaos.

What Trump is really saying is that you should trust him rather than the plain evidence in front of your face. That, my friends, is “weird.”

It is safe to assume they are the following, in order:

1. Stay in power as long as possible;
2. Manipulate America into a wider war with Iran that is purely in Israel’s interests; and
3. Help Trump get elected.

Agreeing to a cease-fire accomplishes none of these objectives; in fact, it is inconsistent with all of them. As a result, even though the Israeli military and a large segment of the public wants a cease-fire, it won’t happen unless it is the prelude to a wider war.

And what of the wider war? It would be horribly risky; Israel’s very existence would be at stake. It would, however, accomplish the first two objectives, and possibly the third. It cannot be dismissed at this point.

Prominent members of the New Right are in a panic about birth rates. They are demanding more children. And yet, they are the first in line to insist that women and children seeking asylum in our country must be deported ASAP.

On its face, it makes no sense. Can you explain it to me?

Here’s the list:

1. IDENTITY ISSUES: Harris is just brushing off Trump’s identity-based attacks, which is wise, since they only alienate swing voters. In any event, the facts on identity speak for themselves, and the electorate of 2024 is younger and less amenable to racist attacks than the electorate of 2016.
2. THE FUTURE, NOT THE PAST: Trump is a reactionary. His vision of America is an idealized (from the white Christian nationalist point of view) version of the 1950s. Basing the discussion in today’s reality, embracing change, and refusing to go backwards is the best antidote for that approach.
3. FREEDOM, NOT DEMOCRACY: Saving “democracy” is too abstract for the average voter. Talking about how the GOP is coming for specific freedoms will make more of an impression. That is what Harris is doing.

It appeared that we were stumbling into oblivion with Biden as the nominee. Harris has brought us hope. I appreciate that.

But don’t be fooled; we are looking at two grim alternatives after the election. Harris is still the underdog. If she loses, we will be at the mercy of a man who has consistently demanded revenge on his enemies–meaning everyone who didn’t give him unqualified support–for the next four years. If she wins, that same man will be calling for war on the streets in order to keep himself out of jail. There is little reason to doubt that the hard core of the red base will respond, particularly since the president-elect will now be a black female, not another old white guy. Then what?

It won’t be pretty, that’s for sure.

After the war and the Spanish Flu came the Roaring Twenties. In the popular imagination, it was a time of of prosperity and hedonism–of Al Capone, Jay Gatsby, and flappers dancing the Charleston. It was the party that would never end, until the Great Depression came crashing down, and it did.

But that is only part of the picture. The Roaring Twenties were a time of furious cultural warfare, as the rural white Protestant majority attempted to regain control of the country. Prohibition was imposed; a new racist immigration law was adopted; the Scopes trial took place; Al Smith was crushed in 1928; and the Klan was revived, even in some northern states.

We’re reliving the second part of the picture. We skipped the first part, for better or worse.

Walz provides identity balance for the ticket. He may win a few votes in the Midwest. He’s pretty good on TV. He comes from possibly the only state in which progressive politics mix with rural residents. He can plausibly accuse J.D. Vance of being a member of the coastal elite. That would be fun.

But the more compelling case for Walz is what he won’t do. He won’t alienate the left or the center. He won’t cost the Democrats any votes in Michigan. Most of all, unlike some of the other candidates for the job, he isn’t indispensable where he is now. Minnesota is not a swing state, and his replacement will be a Democrat. If Harris wins, the blue team won’t pay any price for it.

I agree with the choice.

Under the most optimistic scenario, the Democrats will win the House and keep 50 seats in the Senate. That’s it. A more realistic scenario has the GOP winning a tiny majority in the Senate. As a result, the opportunities for Harris and the Democrats to do much meaningful legislating will be few and far between.

There is one exception to this rule–the Trump individual tax cuts are expiring next year, which would give Harris considerable leverage with the Republicans in the Senate, who will desperately want to keep them. Would Harris look at the deficit and let them expire, or would she make a deal in which the tax cuts for the wealthy are traded for additional spending on social programs such as the child tax credit?

Harris, like most Democrats (and, for that matter, Republicans) doesn’t seem to care much about the deficit. In addition, Congress has been allergic to difficult tradeoffs for many years. My money is on the second option.

Inflation was a worldwide phenomenon created primarily by pandemic-related supply chain issues. Harris had approximately zero percent responsibility for it. Nevertheless, Trump will keep hammering her on the issue, and some of it will undoubtedly stick.

So how should she respond? In three ways. First, by noting the improvement over the last 18 months. Second, by emphasizing the efforts made by Biden-Harris to reduce prices, most notably of prescription drugs. Third, and most importantly, by talking about Trump’s tariffs at every opportunity. The public is not aware of them yet. It needs to be.