Category: Uncategorized

I didn’t watch the SOTU, because my wife bought tickets for a Dylan concert last night. I had never seen Dylan live before, but I knew what to expect; he wouldn’t play many of the hits, and they would be mostly unrecognizable in new arrangements. That’s exactly what happened. Virtually all of the show consisted of slow blues numbers that all sounded alike.

There was one exception. The highlight of the show was “Roll Over Beethoven.” Who would have guessed that?

As for the other guy in his age cohort, the commentators all agree that he was feisty, energetic, and competent. The extremists in the GOP were stupid enough to heckle him, which only makes him look better by comparison. This will give heart to everyone on the blue team who can see the election going down the drain before the campaign even starts.

Biden knows that Bibi’s political survival depends on his ability to prolong the war and stand up to international pressure. It is unlikely, therefore, that the president is foolish enough to believe that he can flip Bibi on any major issue relating to Gaza or the West Bank.

Biden’s real audience at this point is the Israeli public and Bibi’s potential successors–most notably, Benny Gantz. If the next Israeli government is open to working with a viable Palestinian political entity–without any elements of Hamas, of course–on a course to a two-state solution, it will have a much better chance of normalizing relations with the Saudis, and the American political vision will have been fulfilled.

In other words, this is a long game, not a short one. It’s the man behind the man behind the curtain who matters here.

Dr. Jill and the president are discussing campaign strategy at the White House.

JOE: Well, Super Tuesday is over, with no great surprises. It’s time to talk seriously about the general election campaign.

JILL: Not a moment too soon. We’re behind in the polls, and panic is starting to set in.

JOE: So, how would you suggest we run the campaign?

JILL: I have some ideas for commercials that will set the tone for it.

JOE: Let’s hear them!

JILL: The first one is entitled “Covid.” People have forgotten what it was like during 2020. We would have images of Trump telling people to eat bleach, downplaying the virus, and refusing to wear a mask interspersed with shots of screaming ambulances, unemployed workers, and exhausted nurses. That’s Trump’s America. We deserve better.

JOE: I like it. What else?

JILL: The second one is called “Dictators.” Trump is on camera saying great things about Xi, Putin, and Kim. Then we show him saying he will be a dictator on the first day. Why shouldn’t we believe him?

JOE: OK. Next?

JILL: “Witnesses.” Quotes from people like Bolton, Mattis, Barr, and Tillerson who worked for the man. You don’t have to take it from us; everyone who served him says he’s unfit for office.

JOE: Next?

JILL: “Ukraine.” Lots of images of destruction and death caused by Putin and the Russians. Trump wants to hand Ukraine to the invaders. Is that really what America wants?

JOE: Good Next?

JILL: “Abortion.” Shots of Trump taking credit for the end of Roe mixed with horror stories about women who were forced to give birth in extreme circumstances.

JOE: That one should resonate. Anything else?

JILL: Three more. “Tariffs” will focus on Trump’s desire to raise prices at the grocery store, “Climate Change” will mix images of hurricanes and wildfires with shots of Trump throwing paper towels to desperate people in Puerto Rico and saying climate change is a Chinese hoax, and “Health Care” will make it clear that Trump still wants to repeal Obamacare.

JOE: That sounds pretty powerful.

JILL: It better be. We’re rowing upstream against a current of Trump nostalgia. If we don’t overcome it, we’re going to lose, and God knows what happens after that.

JOE: Let’s get to work!

Elon Musk is a techno-optimist; Donald Trump is a reactionary who wants to bring back the economy of the past at the expense of the future. Musk is basically a self-made billionaire with plenty of real accomplishments; Trump inherited his money, squandered lots of it, and maintained a fortune only by becoming a celebrity. But Trump apparently met with Musk yesterday and asked for a large campaign contribution, which he might well get. What is it that brings these very different men together?

Two things: a belief that they are great men who should be above the law and popular opinion; and a contempt for bureaucrats and the status quo. My guess is that Musk cynically believes that power will devolve to him and his fellow tech bros once Trump has finished putting a jackhammer to the America we know and love. If so, he’s probably wrong.

It was obvious from the beginning that the most likely outcome was a unanimous, or close to unanimous, decision keeping Trump on the ballot. The concern about a patchwork of state decisions may or may not have been supported by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and case law, but it definitely made sense from a practical perspective.

I don’t see much to complain about here. The decision to take jurisdiction of the immunity case is a completely different story. Even if the Court ultimately writes a ringing opinion rejecting the immunity argument, it has effectively, and deliberately, rigged the scales in favor of Trump.

Paul Krugman is right; there is a double standard in our political discourse. It is viewed as perfectly legitimate for rural residents to describe American cities as being crime-ridden, godless hellholes, but the same is not true for urban residents describing red America as socially and economically backward. Where did this distinction come from, and what does it mean?

Four observations are pertinent here. First, the urban/rural cultural and political split is not unique to American history, as anyone who has studied the English Civil War and the Paris Commune could tell you. Second, it has been a factor in American politics since Jefferson. Third, it is more virulent in America than in other countries, since they are more ethnically homogeneous than we are. Finally, the urban/rural political split has more practical ramifications in America than in other countries because the Senate gives disproportionate representation to rural residents.

Last time, the Europeans responded to Trump by sucking up to him. Will we see more of the same this time around, if he wins?

No. They know it doesn’t work. As soon as Trump flips on Ukraine and starts imposing tariffs, the gloves will be off. The EU will retaliate with tariffs of its own, and the downward spiral will begin.

It will be interesting to see how Viktor Orban, Trump’s ideological blood brother, enjoys losing the benefit of American markets and military assistance. The whole notion of an international grouping of fervently nationalist states makes no sense.

According to David French, the left has finally fled Sewer, which has turned into a extreme right-wing playpen. Even more than Fox News, it has become the right’s chosen source of (mis)information.

The problem for Musk is that the kind of people who now populate Sewer would rather eat ground glass than buy an electric car. He is busy alienating existing and potential Tesla customers in favor of a constituency that hates his primary product.

Musk thinks he’s above the rules. Unfortunately for him, the rules of logic still apply, and they’re going to cost him a lot of money.

The left wants a cease-fire in Gaza. One assumes they also want the Israelis to withdraw. Then what? Hamas will still be in charge of the wreckage. It has no interest in improving the lives of the residents; it only wants to destroy Israel. How do we get from a stinking pile of rubble and a starving populace under the control of a revolutionary organization to a lasting peace and a real Palestinian state? You can’t get from Point A to Point B.

The right just wants the Israelis to bounce the rubble in Gaza. How does that enable us to midwife an alliance between Israel and the Saudis? How does it help us rally the world against Putin and China? All it does is alienate world opinion and make us look like hypocrites when we advocate for universal human rights.

Here’s what I would say about foreign policy:

1. UKRAINE: Putin is a bloody dictator who invaded a small democracy, killed tens of thousands of people, and destroyed everything in his path for no better reason than he just wanted it under his control. Some members of Congress think if we appease him, he’ll stop with Ukraine, but history tells us otherwise. Some members of Congress think Ukraine is a European problem, and we should focus solely on China, but Europe doesn’t have the resources in the short run to stop Putin, and the best way to deter potential Chinese aggression in Asia is to prove we have the will and the means to stop their ally without, of course, risking World War III. If those members of Congress had been alive after Pearl Harbor, they would have told the American public we didn’t have the ability to fight both Hitler and the Japanese at the same time. Guess how that would have turned out!
2. CHINA: We have mobilized our friends in Asia to send a message to the Chinese that aggression will not be accepted. That said, we need to work with the Chinese on issues such as North Korea and climate change, and diversifying supply chains will take time, so we need to operate with some degree of nuance. Slapping huge tariffs on the Chinese will only increase inflation at home. Do we really want that?
3. GAZA: Israel had every right to defend itself against Hamas. Hamas is a revolutionary organization, not a real government, and has refused to be a partner for peace in the Middle East. As such, any hope for real progress on the Palestinian issue is conditioned on its destruction, and demanding a cease-fire with Hamas still in control of parts of Gaza is counterproductive. But providing unqualified support for any Israeli action, regardless of how brutal and unfocused, in Gaza is also a mistake; how does turning Gaza into rubble and killing tens of thousands of civilians make the creation of a Palestinian state, and an alliance between moderate Arabs and Israel, more likely? How does alienating public opinion around the world by slaughtering Palestinian civilians help us deal with our other foreign policy challenges? A middle course, with the objective of real change in the Middle East, is what is required here.
4. IRAN: Some members of Congress want us to strike directly at Iran and start a new war in the Middle East. Given our history, do we really want another war there? And does it make sense to rally the citizens of Iran around the government at a time when its legitimacy is in question, and regime change is around the corner? We will continue to deter Iran and its proxies, but in a way that is proportionate to any attacks on our forces so as to avoid a wider conflict.

Biden’s most important task in the SOTU is to prove to the public that he is physically and mentally fit to do the job for another four years. I can’t help him with that, but here’s some advice on what to say on domestic issues:

1. A BLAST FROM THE PAST: America has forgotten what life was like when Biden took office. Unemployment had soared; thousands of people were dying from the virus every day; and the government’s response to the challenge was chaotic at best. And, of course, there was January 6. Today, unemployment is very low and the pandemic is over. Life is good, comparatively speaking.
2. INFLATION: Inflation was a worldwide problem caused by side effects of the pandemic. Just as it did after the two world wars, it has subsided. It is under control again. It won’t be, however, if we impose new tariffs on imported goods; that’s a big tax increase, by the way.
3. ABORTION: Due to the decision in Dobbs, abortion rights are under threat in the entire country–even in states that have put them in their constitutions. A national ban is a real possibility. Roe should be codified at the federal level immediately.
4. CLIMATE CHANGE: It is still an existential threat. The huge fire in Texas is evidence of that. It comes for people in red as well as blue states. We made significant progress by passing the IRA, but more needs to be done. Let’s keep working on it.
5. THE BORDER: The problems at the border are the result of inadequate resources and legislation that doesn’t address some of the issues with regard to asylum. The bipartisan Senate bill was a big step forward. Let’s finish the job.

I realized for the first time yesterday that the protagonist in this song bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Donald Trump. Listen to it yourself–you’ll see what I mean.

I’m pretty sure Pete Townshend never dreamed that he was describing a future POTUS when he was writing this song. What does he think when he plays it now?

McConnell knew it was time to go; his health was visibly declining, and he was starting to lose control of his MAGA members. His timing was impeccable; without the burden of speaking for his entire caucus, he is now free to advocate for Ukraine with fewer limits. But what happens when he goes? Is the Senate doomed to become yet another version of the House?

Not exactly. The combination of tradition and longer terms (leading to slower turnover) will prevent radical change in the short run. In addition, because senators represent entire states, there are no constituencies that are entirely bright red and rural. There is no doubt, however, that the MAGA influence will increase after the election unless the Democrats defy the odds and win a blowout victory. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

The real question is whether the filibuster survives without McConnell in the leadership if Trump wins and the GOP has a majority in the Senate. There will be enormous pressure to get rid of it to facilitate a national abortion ban. Collins and Murkowski will not vote for that, however. The filibuster will stay unless the GOP winds up with at least 52 Senate seats after November, which is possible, but pretty unlikely.

There was no good reason for the Supreme Court to hear Trump’s immunity issue. The legal principle is clear; the D.C. Circuit’s opinion is well-written; all four judges who considered the case reached the same conclusion; and the public interest is best served by a speedy decision on the merits of the case. And yet, the Court decided to take jurisdiction. Why?

By cooperating with Trump’s stall ball tactics, the Court is effectively supporting his campaign. I wish I could say otherwise, but I can’t. There is no other good explanation for this transparently bad decision.

The charges are legally frivolous. The GOP leaders in both the House and the Senate have to know that. And yet, they are going forward. What’s the point?

Several reasons. First of all, the MAGA cohort within the House has always been more interested in posturing for Fox News and the base back home than in getting actual results. Second, that same cohort wants to establish that it controls the Republican Party; moderate members in swing districts are obligated to follow their will. Third, the PBPs who voted for impeachment while presumably knowing the absurdity of the allegations fear upsetting the base and facing a primary more than losing a general election.

It’s yet another embarrassment for the GOP. While some of the Republican senators will use the opportunity to posture about border control, most of them will be happy to see the charges disappear as quickly as possible.