Category: Uncategorized

GOP politicians feel strongly about “protecting” children from woke ideas about race and gender they find obnoxious. They have typically framed this as an argument about protecting the rights of conservative parents. Should we take them seriously?

If this were really a process argument about parents’ rights, you would expect the GOP to stand up for parents who want their trans children to have appropriate medical care. They don’t; in that case, parents have no rights. The same thing would be true about parents in bright blue cities who want their children to be “protected” from books they would view as racist or sexist. This is really an argument about using the state to enforce traditional values; parents are just a means to an end.

Biden gets plenty of stick from both sides on several issues. Who’s right here? Let’s look at the record:

1. INFLATION: RIGHT: Biden’s spending caused the inflation. Cutting spending will solve it. LEFT: Biden’s the president, right? He should have done something to make inflation go away! People are suffering, and the economy sucks! We don’t know what should be done, but the president should always have the answers. THE TRUTH: Democratic spending was a small, but meaningful, component of American inflation, which was primarily caused by dislocations resulting from the pandemic and was a worldwide phenomenon. The additional spending, which is now over, also fueled a recovery that is the envy of the world, and temporarily expanded the welfare state to the benefit of American workers. Today, the dislocations are over, and inflation has more or less returned to normal.
2. GAZA: RIGHT: Bounce the rubble! Biden should forget about protecting Palestinian civilians and give unqualified support to Israel. LEFT: From the river to the sea! We need a cease-fire immediately to protect the Palestinians! The Israelis are imperialist occupiers! THE TRUTH: A cease-fire would represent an unwarranted victory for Hamas terrorism, and would only tempt them to do it again, but bouncing the rubble is cruel and myopic. The objectives are to enable an Israeli victory, to protect civilians to the maximum extent possible, and to demand a political solution fair to both sides after the war.
3. STUDENT DEBT: RIGHT: Forgiving student debt doesn’t solve the affordability problem and unfairly taxes people without college educations for the benefit of the more fortunate. LEFT: Biden’s plan failed, so he sucks. We might just as well have Trump. THE TRUTH: Biden can’t control the Supreme Court. What is he supposed to do?
4. IMMIGATION: RIGHT: America is full. We need to bring back Trump’s policies. Cruelty is necessary to create a deterrent. Biden has opened the border to everyone. LEFT: Biden is just as bad as Trump. We need to open our hearts, minds, and borders to the poor people who just want a safe place to live and work. THE TRUTH: What we need is a system that is humane, orderly, and predictable. The current system was designed and funded by Congress. Only Congress can solve the problems.
5. CLIMATE CHANGE: RIGHT: Climate change is a hoax, or at most, a problem that can’t be solved without destroying the American economy. Focus on energy independence and stop worrying about it. Victims of wildfires and hurricanes are acceptable collateral damage. LEFT: Biden isn’t doing enough to solve the problem. In particular, there is way too much drilling being permitted. THE TRUTH: With a carbon tax off the table as a practical matter, and regulations likely to run afoul of the Supreme Court’s bogus “major questions” doctrine, the only thing left on the menu was subsidies. The IRA was a significant step forward, and the only one available to Biden.

The latest issue of The Atlantic contains about twenty short articles from prominent commentators setting out the likely horrors of a second Trump term. Most of these will be familiar to anyone who reads this blog, so it doesn’t make for essential reading. With one exception.

There is a two-page spread roughly in the middle of it that consists solely of quotes from people who worked for Trump–almost all of them solid conservatives, mind you–advising the world of what a threat the man is to good governance. So you don’t have to take it from me, folks; there it is, all from people that Trump trusted at one time to run the country.

If they aren’t qualified to give us a definitive opinion, who is?

The irrepressible Tressie McMillan Cottom tells us once again in the NYT that the economy, in spite of all of the positive numbers, sucks. This time, she focuses a bit more narrowly on the expiration of the additional pandemic welfare state benefits. She thinks the campaign narrative should take that into account.

Well, of course it should! But instead of driving blue team morale down by whining about how bad things are and implicitly blaming Biden, the objective should be to assign blame where it belongs–on Joe Manchin and the Republicans. They’re the ones who are responsible for Biden’s inability to remake the dollar store economy. If the reactionary bastards can be overcome, happy days can be here again! Get out and vote for the welfare state, young people!

That’s an actual program. It would be inflationary, and higher interest rates may put it beyond our reach. It would involve trade-offs that weren’t necessary during the depths of the pandemic. But it at least would make political sense.

Today’s Israeli Supreme Court decision on the judicial review legislation is a clear and important legal victory for Israel’s blue team. Politically, it is a disaster. It gives Netanyahu the opportunity to attack his opponents for dividing the country at a time of crisis. It means he now has the legal ability to say no to his extremist allies without fearing future repercussions. Finally, it lets him play the victim, a role he devours, just like Trump.

The Israeli red team is going to take this as more evidence that the system is rigged against them. Sound familiar?

Trump is celebrating the new year by discussing border issues with Stephen Miller at Mar-a-Lago.

T: Stephen! Good to see you! Ready to talk illegal immigration?

M: Always, Mr. President. Always.

T: So what’s the plan?

M: There are two things we need to be working on now.

T: Which are?

M: First, we’re going to be relying heavily on the military to carry out our plans, so we have to find someone we can put in charge who can be trusted.

T: Heritage is working on that. What else?

M: We need to have an executive order finding an emergency at the border ready to go on Inauguration Day. The geographic boundary of it will be unlimited, and will specifically include all of the major cities in blue states.

T: Sounds good. Then what?

M: After the inauguration, we put the plan in motion. There are a number of components to it.

T: Including finishing the wall, I assume.

M: Of course!

T: How will we pay for it?

M: If there are any funds in the pipeline for Ukraine, we’ll use them. If not, it will just be part of the defense budget.

T: That could be considered illegal.

M: Who cares? The American people are demanding action. We’re not going to pay any attention to court orders we don’t like. The Supreme Court will probably buy our emergency argument in any event. Then we can use it to shut up everyone we don’t like.

T: How will we get the property for the wall?

M: We’ll start the eminent domain actions immediately.

T: I suppose we’ll be using the military to build our new deportation camps.

M: Right! They’ll be built in the worst places possible, but close to airports. We’ll make sure the immigrants are treated as poorly as possible. We’ll broadcast it to the world. That’s the kind of cruelty we need to create a deterrent.

T: How will the camps be filled?

M: We’ll send the military to the blue cities to conduct raids. Anyone who can’t immediately produce papers will be sent to a camp. We’ll give them a brief hearing, and then put them on a plane.

T: That sounds good. We know there will be demonstrations. We can use the troops to shoot the demonstrators while they’re in the blue cities. That will shut them up.

M: That’s the reason the emergency order won’t just apply to the border areas.

T: Anything else?

M: We’ll start sending troops to Mexico to fight the drug gangs.

T: What if the Mexicans object?

M: We’ll shut down all of the border crossings. That will show them.

T: But all of this will cause major economic problems for us, too. What do we say to our business constituents, and to the consumers?

M: No pain, no gain. Everyone will be better off when the border is secure. We’ll have a real country again.

T: OK. Let’s do it. (Miller leaves)

There are several reports to the effect that the MAGA movement is trying to rehabilitate Richard Nixon. Given the similarities between Trump and Nixon, that makes a certain amount of sense. After all:

1. Both were the subject of impeachment proceedings;
2. Both believed it was OK to use the power of the government against their enemies;
3. Both hated the media;
4. Both were enthusiastic cultural warriors; and
5. Both lived with a chip on their shoulder, although only Nixon had good reason to do so.

But the differences are at least as significant:

1. Nixon felt it was necessary to cover up his corruption and abuses of power. Trump practically flaunts them;
2. Nixon never tried to overturn the result of an election by force;
3. Nixon had Henry Kissinger, while Trump has Michael Flynn. Not exactly the same thing;
4. Nixon actually worked with Democrats in Congress on occasion; and
5. Nixon resigned, but Trump doubled down.

In addition, both had Roger Stone in common, of course. Do the similarities outweigh the differences? You decide.

Many commentators–some of whom even have some legal expertise–have asserted with total confidence that the disqualification language in the Fourteenth Amendment either clearly does, or clearly doesn’t, apply to Trump and January 6. The truth is otherwise; the issue is highly ambiguous. What is an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution? Does it have to be as bloody and widespread as the Civil War, or does a single riot at the Capitol meet the standard? There are no definitive answers in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, in the legislative history, or in case law.

The Supreme Court can’t avoid ruling on this issue. For a variety of reasons, it will be inclined to keep Trump on the ballot, but it will do what it can to avoid looking partisan. It has several different rationales that can be used to justify its decision. What one will it choose?

Here they are, with my analysis:

1. THE AMENDMENT DOESN’T APPLY TO PRESIDENTS, SINCE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IS NOT LISTED IN THE TEXT: This approach makes no logical sense, and it gives the most dangerous man in America–the commander of the armed forces–the legal right to engage in insurrection.
2. THE ISSUE IS PREMATURE AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCESS: There is a good legal argument to that effect, but it only prolongs the agony unless Trump is somehow defeated in the primaries. We need an answer as soon as possible.
3. THE RECORD DEFINITIVELY SHOWS THAT TRUMP BEARS NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR JANUARY 6: A ruling of this nature would fly in the face of the evidence and compromise the ongoing criminal cases. The Court won’t want to do that.
4. JANUARY 6 WAS NOT AN “INSURRECTION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE EVENT IN QUESTION HAS TO INVOLVE A HIGHER LEVEL OF VIOLENCE IN MORE PLACES: Commentators since January 6 have struggled to decide whether the event was an “insurrection” or just a “riot.” While a decision of this nature would seem to give Trump and his successors a get out of jail free card for small scale events, this case can always be distinguished from future cases on its facts.

In short, I would vote for Option #4 as the best avenue of damage control. Will the Court? We’ll see.

Nikki Haley isn’t stupid. She knows as well as you and I do that the Civil War was about slavery. So why did she stumble on this issue?

While the mainstream GOP position on racial issues is that the sordid events of the past were just an unfortunate blip with no relevance to today, she knows that a significant part of the base believes that the Civil War was an imperialist conflict forced on the Confederacy by abolitionists with no regard for the rights of states and property owners. She was afraid to offend this group. Unfortunately for her, by refusing to do so, she offended a much larger group and made herself look ridiculous.

If someone put Trump or DeSantis on the spot and asked the same question, you would probably get the same kind of equivocal response, and for the same reason. Fortunately for them, it was Haley who got the question, not them.

Everything in America obviously revolves around the election. I don’t have the requisite level of confidence in the outcome, so I’m not going to predict the winner of the presidential race. I will, however, predict the following:

1. There will be no Trump trials until after the primaries are effectively over. There may be none at all.
2. Trump will be on the ballot in all fifty states.
3. The polls will look better for Biden on Election Day than they do today, as the voters will start comparing him to Trump instead of some ideal Republican.
4. As always, the election will be determined by about 100,000 swing voters in purple states. Those of us in deep red or blue states will have no real influence on the outcome.
5. The state of the economy will dictate the votes of most of those swing voters. Third party candidates will also have a significant influence on the outcome.
6. If Biden wins, Trump will say the election was rigged and once again call for an insurrection.
7. If that occurs, the action will be mostly in red states. State and local officials and law enforcement will take leadership roles. The situation will be far more dangerous than it was in 2021.
8. The GOP will win a tiny majority in the Senate. That won’t amount to much, as Collins and Murkowski are to the GOP as Sinema and Manchin are to the Democrats. The party that wins the House will have a tiny majority; I don’t know which party it will be.

Here’s what you can expect in 2024:

1. THE MIDDLE EAST SEETHES, BUT DOES NOT EXPLODE: Netanyahu decides the best way to cling to power is to defy the world by completely pulverizing and indefinitely occupying Gaza. In spite of his current unpopularity at home, it works. The radical right starts talking more seriously about ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and even in Israel itself. The war, however, does not expand. Iran is too vulnerable, and too concerned with the succession, to do more than encourage its proxies to lob a few missiles at Israel. In the meantime, the momentum towards an agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia disappears, and America stops providing diplomatic cover for the occupation. Israel is alone, which suits Bibi just fine.
2. NO WAR OVER TAIWAN: Xi is busy with his domestic problems, and he doesn’t want to antagonize America during an election year.
3. LABOUR WINS THE UK ELECTION: It takes place in the fall. Sunak resigns as head of the Conservative Party. The battle for the succession is going to be bloody.
4. PLENTY OF PAIN IN UKRAINE: If, according to the World War I analogy, 2022 was 1914, and 2023 was 1915, does that mean we will have Verdun and the Somme in 2024? No. Both sides will retrench and wait on events–meaning, primarily, the outcome of the American election. The Ukrainians won’t have the resources to launch another major offensive, and the Russians will focus on relatively small-bore efforts to destroy the morale of the Ukrainians and their NATO supporters.

Hardly a day went by during 2023 without blaring headlines about House GOP dysfunction. From the chaotic speaker election in January to the gut-wrenching battle over the debt ceiling to the defenestration of McCarthy to the second chaotic speaker election to the battles over the budget to the George Santos odyssey to the Ukraine aid blockade to a potential suicidal Biden impeachment, the House was always in the news, and never in a good way.

And yet, the GOP hasn’t paid a price for it yet. For their success in creating constant, pointless turbulence without throwing America completely over the guardrails, the Four Horsemen of the House GOP–McCarthy, Santos, Matt Gaetz, and Mike Johnson–are my men of the year.

According to our local newspaper, the net worth of the average American rose 37 percent between 2019 and 2022. Unemployment is around a 50-year low. Inflation has fallen to the point that it is around the average of the last 50 years. Interest rates are higher than they were in the recent past, but about average for my lifetime. The picture looks very bright on its face, but most Americans are complaining. Why?

I think housing prices, which represent a large part of the increased average net worth, are a big part of the puzzle. The average renter experiences the high prices on a daily basis and has reason to complain about them. The average owner, who benefits from the housing price inflation, doesn’t think about his increased net worth very much; he is more focused on higher gas and food prices, which he pays every day.

Hence, the apparently irrational grumbling about the state of the economy.

After the successful Trump impeachment in January 2021, he was permanently disqualified from office. The GOP candidate in 2024 would have to be someone different.

Trump wasn’t going away, however. As he, and the base, viewed it, he was the only meaningful voter in the upcoming primaries. He was the decider. The candidate who did the best job of sucking up to him and offering him the greatest amount of influence would be the winner.

It was a tight contest. All of the candidates were amazingly obsequious. But in the end, DeSantis stood out, just as he did during the Florida primaries in 2018. Trump gave him the nod, and the process was over, just like that.

I was clearly right on three of my five predictions. Unlike many commentators, I was skeptical of Ukraine’s ability to break through the Russian defenses, so I opined that the war would turn into a stalemate. I also predicted correctly that there would be no US-Iran war, and that, without fanfare, the US would turn to a policy of deterrence in lieu of negotiations or regime change with North Korea.

The other two predictions involved China and Turkey; I suggested there would be some saber-rattling with Taiwan and Greece, respectively, but no war. I was right on the no war issue. Whether there was enough saber-rattling to warrant a mention in my list, I will leave to you.