Category: Uncategorized

Ross Douthat has argued for years that America is a decadent society; his Exhibit A is our, to him, unacceptably low birthrate. More recently, however, he has finally looked around the world and ascertained that other, more socially conservative countries have even lower birthrates than we do. His new conclusion is that only America can save the world from the declining population bomb. What is going on here?

The reasons for, and solutions to, a declining birth rate are perfectly obvious. If you have a society that gives women lots of opportunities for economic advancement–in all likelihood, requires them to work–but also puts virtually all of the demands of bearing and raising children on them, you’re not going to have many children. There aren’t enough hours in a day.

The reactionary “solution” to this is to envision a country in which men do all of the paying work and women can afford to stay at home and have children–America in the 1950s, in other words. Of course, the reactionaries have no idea how to get there from here except through tariffs. The more plausible approach is to encourage men to play a much bigger role in taking care of children. If you’ve seen the new Amazon commercial that uses the Chicago song “25 or 6 to 4” as a background, you have seen the ideal type for this more feminist society; the stay-at-home dad does a great job with the baby and is rewarded with sex by the mother for his hard work.

A representative of the Heritage Foundation made the claim in a recent NYT interview that the violence associated with the demonstrations following the George Floyd murder was worse than January 6. This is a claim frequently made by members of the right. What does it tell us about their priorities?

January 6 was about subverting the Constitution and the will of the voters; the BLM actions resulted in property damage. Heritage–and it is not alone–attaches more value to torched convenience stores than to liberal democracy.

Years ago, I did a post about how Taylor Swift had successfully transitioned from country to pop music without offending much of anyone. I concluded that the Democratic Party had much to learn from her. Today, reactionary activists view her as the enemy. Does that mean she has lost red America for good?

No, because in America, celebrity and narrative usually trump ideology. Swift is an attractive white pop princess with a jock boyfriend–how perfectly American is that? It sounds like something from a Disney movie. Do you really think teenage girls from red states are going to give up on that just because someone on Fox News says they should?

No, and they haven’t stopped going to Disney parks, either.

Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift

Exposed a deep and ugly rift

Between the far right and the NFL.

They think pro football’s gone to hell.

_________

They could be right, for all I know.

But if they are, where will they go?

They have lots of alternatives, fortunately.

They can still watch NASCAR and the SEC.

To the American right, a “conservative” is someone who believes in traditional values: Christianity; the political, social, and economic supremacy of white men; gender rigidity; and sexual practices as regulated by scripture. Any American institution, including our political system, which no longer promotes this agenda should be taken over and either reformed or destroyed.

To the left and center, a “conservative” is someone who believes in slowing the pace of change to a crawl in order to avoid collateral damage and unexpected consequences. We can only absorb so much at a time. The political system and our institutions are based on the collective experience of millions of people over hundreds of years and should be protected to the maximum extent possible.

Which definition makes more sense? Which of the two party nominees is a genuine “conservative?” You decide.

An article in Politico tells us that Erdogan took a decade to establish illiberal rule in Turkey, so we shouldn’t be concerned that Trump can do it in four years. Should we feel reassured?

No, because it didn’t take Hitler and Mussolini that long. If you follow the processes of liberal democracy to rot it out from the inside, it might take a decade, but if you are determined to win absolute power from the minute you take office, all you need is control over the military and something you can call an emergency. Do we know for certain that Trump won’t try that? No, we don’t.

Hezbollah isn’t a terrorist organization; it’s a state within a state. It has obligations to its constituents in Lebanon. It has plenty of power in Beirut, too. In other words, it has a lot to lose in a war with Israel. As a result, it has been relatively responsible over the last few months; it has lobbed a few missiles at the Israelis, and made life at the border impossible, but it shows no interest in starting a full-scale war. I don’t expect that to change any time soon.

The Houthis are a different story, even though they are also a state within a state. Having beaten the Saudis, they are suffering from delusions of grandeur; they probably think if they suck us into a war on their terms, they can beat us, too. It won’t happen. American military action against them will be solely focused on maintaining freedom of navigation in the Red Sea.

The pro-Iranian militias in Iraq are even worse. What are they trying to accomplish by attacking American bases outside of the country? Do they think they have the power to drive us out of the Middle East? Do they think weakening the international effort against IS, which just killed hundreds of people in a despicable terrorist bombing in Iran, is a good idea?

What they are actually doing is creating a threat to Iran. The Iranian government needs to get a grip on these guys as soon as possible.

Reactionaries turn everything into cultural wars and conspiracies, so it is no surprise that they have concocted a ridiculous narrative about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. But the opposition in the Super Bowl represents San Francisco, one of the cities the right really loves to hate. And Colin Kaepernick played for the 49ers, for God’s sake! It doesn’t get any worse than that.

The right loves the violence of football, but it has a completely unpalatable choice here. Don’t you feel sorry for them?

As I’ve noted several times before, it is in the best interests of neither the US nor Iran to widen the war. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen if one or more of Iran’s proxies gets out of control. If you don’t believe me, just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Biden–quite correctly–has concluded that American credibility requires us to retaliate firmly for the deaths of three soldiers at a base in Jordan. The trick is to find targets that will send the message and put an end to further such attacks without creating further danger of escalation.

Some right-wing American politicians predictably want us to strike directly at Iran. There is a case for doing so, but the risks of escalation would increase dramatically. I suspect Biden will play it safe and limit the retaliation to the proxies.

Back in the day–that is, back when people said “Back in the day”–the PBP faction was in charge of the Republican Party, and the Reactionaries had to settle for crumbs. The PBP desire for tax cuts and deregulation was the featured policy of the GOP; social conservatives got a few judges and some kind words, but little else in return.

Times have changed. The Reactionaries are in charge, because that’s where the votes are. Today, the bargain is different; the PBPs are being told to take their tax cuts, make big profits, donate money, and shut up. And most of them will, even if it costs them customers and valued employees.

Dr. Jill is discussing the upcoming campaign with Joe at the White House.

JILL: Well, it’s all over but the shouting. Trump will be the Republican nominee.

JOE: Just as I predicted.

JILL: I’ll give you credit for that. I thought DeSantis would make it closer than he did.

JOE: Everyone running against Trump has to figure out how to beat him without alienating the base. Nobody has succeeded as of today.

JILL: So we need to start planning the campaign against Trump in earnest.

JOE: Let’s start with the issues that Trump will use against me. You can play Trump. We’ll deal with our wedge issues against him on another day.

JILL: OK. Inflation. It’s raging out of control. We didn’t have inflation in my day. Vote for me and inflation will disappear.

JOE: Inflation was a worldwide phenomenon caused by the pandemic and supply chain issues. It’s basically back to normal now. And Trump doesn’t have a plan to deal with what’s left. His tariff plan is a tax increase on average Americans that will raise prices and bring inflation back for the benefit of rich stockholders who live all over the world–not just in America.

JILL: The supply chain thing is true, but it sounds like whining. I like the part about the tariffs. It’s punchy.

JOE: Next issue.

JILL: China. You’re weak on China. I’m much tougher. The Chinese won’t dare to mess with me.

JOE: Based on what? All you care about is the trade deficit. You made a deal that cost our farmers and taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and the Chinese basically ignored it. I created a loose coalition to deter Chinese misbehavior and cut off their high tech imports. For your part, you sucked up to Xi Jinping all the time and ignored Chinese human rights violations. I have plenty of video to prove it.

JILL: The video will help. That’s the short and punchy thing that will help us win.

JOE: What’s next?

JILL: The border. It’s a disaster. We’re being overrun by illegals. We barely have a country anymore.

JOE: So says the guy who promised to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. Now he’s tanking a bipartisan deal that would actually do some good here.

JILL: He’s handing you a great issue by opposing the bill. Next, there’s crime. It’s out of control. Only I can fix the problem by being tough.

JOE: Crime actually started increasing on your watch in 2020. And we haven’t had any of those terrible riots you complain about during my presidency. They all happened during yours.

JILL: Excellent! The reality here is that the president has no control over crime, but the public doesn’t accept that. You need an effective counter rather than an excuse. The rising crime and riot approach is a good one.

JOE: Anything else?

JILL: Those are the biggies. We’ll work on our issues against him later.

There are lots of ways to run a presidential campaign. William McKinley ran his 1896 campaign from his front porch. Biden’s 2020 campaign rarely left his basement. Plenty of incumbents have stayed in the Rose Garden. What kind of campaign is Trump running in 2024?

A courtroom campaign, of course. Trump has concluded that his martyrdom narrative works best if he shows up at his hearings, whether he is legally required to do so or not. The base obviously loves it, and it has clearly solidified his support with the GOP electorate during the primaries. But will it work in a general election?

Most Americans–the reactionary base excluded– want to hear what the presidential candidates plan to do to help them over the next four years. The martyrdom narrative doesn’t help with that. In addition, any discussion about Trump’s criminal activities isn’t going to win over swing voters. The courtroom campaign is not a viable option for November.

Klein thinks opinions on Gaza within the Democratic Party are largely dictated by historical memory. For people of Biden’s age, Israel is the plucky democracy that survived against great odds in 1948 and 1967; for Gen Xers, Israel tried to make peace, but was frustrated by myopic Palestinian leaders; but for Gen Zers, Israel is the Middle East equivalent of the guy who put his knee on George Floyd’s neck. During their lifetimes, Israel has always been the overwhelmingly predominant military power in the area; Bibi has used that power purely to oppress Palestinians and pull America’s chain. Is Klein correct?

Yes, but part of the problem here is that the young progressives don’t see the big picture. Biden’s objective is to use the current war to create a better political environment for everyone except the extremists in the Middle East. He is doing his best to take advantage of that opportunity, even if it means a degree of rejection and frustration in the short run. Just because the initiative hasn’t borne fruit yet doesn’t mean it won’t in the end.

From the perspective of the average GOP senator, it makes perfect sense to make a deal on the border and Ukraine aid. He doesn’t want Putin to win in Ukraine; his business constituents fear what Trump will do on the immigration issue; and he knows if Trump wins, the extremists will insist on raw populist legislation that will run afoul of the filibuster. Nothing will get done. The time to make a genuinely constructive deal, therefore, is now.

But from the perspective of the average GOP House member, things are quite different. His seat is safe, except for potential attacks from the right. He’s focused on winning the presidency. He knows the last thing Trump wants before the election is some sort of bipartisan deal that looks like a win for Biden and takes the teeth out of the border issue, which, more than anything, is Trump’s brand. He doesn’t want a negotiated legislative solution; he wants Trump to take unilateral, and probably illegal, actions to address the problem once and for all. For now, the problem, for him, is the point.

Mike Johnson needs to build credibility with the extremists in order to continue to make deals on the budget with Democrats, so he will go along with them on this issue. As a result, the deal won’t happen.

To the extent that DeSantis tried attacking Trump at all, it was from the right on social issues. That didn’t go well. Haley is attacking Trump from the right on fiscal issues and foreign policy; that isn’t faring too well, either. But what would have happened if a genuine populist–both on social and economic issues–had challenged the man on golf cart? Would the result have been different?

Probably not, because the GOP rich men north of Richmond would have done everything in their power to tank this hypothetical candidate. They like their populism on the bogus side, and totally oriented towards social issues. Nevertheless, it would have been a lot more interesting than the race we actually had.