Cromwell

Ron DeSantis took several threads of largely unrelated leftist thought (e.g., support for vaccines and anti-racism), tied them together as a single ideology called “wokeness,” and made opposition to it the centerpiece of his campaign. This approach didn’t resonate with the GOP electorate, which found it confusing and irrelevant to their most pressing concerns. That, along with the Hungarian Candidate’s decision to chase the wrong voters and leave Trump untouched, is the reason the DeSantis campaign is dying today.

Biden wants to make the protection of “democracy” the centerpiece of his campaign, but if he does, he may find that “democracy,”, like “wokeness,” is too abstract for the electorate. He would be wise to make the case more concrete–Trump and the GOP are coming for your rights, including (but not limited to) abortion, Obamacare, freedom of speech and inquiry, and your ability to participate in the political process. That is something the voters will understand.

Many left-leaning commentators have read the latest polls and want Biden to drop out of the race. Does this make sense, in the real world?

Ignore the overwhelming practical problems with starting a campaign from scratch just a few weeks before the primary season begins. The obvious issue here is that all of the plausible Biden alternatives have nothing new to run on. You could attack the man from the left, but promising to run as a pillar of wokeness isn’t going to get you very far, even with the Democratic electorate. Apart from that, there is nothing that Biden has done in office that wouldn’t have been done by any other prominent member of the left. In particular, there are no alternative answers from the left to the issues of the border, crime, and inflation that haven’t already been tried.

In the end, you would have candidates running as younger versions of Biden without embarrassing grifter sons. That doesn’t represent much of a platform or a change from the status quo. You might as well stick with the real deal.

No meaningful opposition to a Trump autocracy can be expected from GOP members of Congress, even though the enhancement of executive powers will be a threat to them, as well. The resistance will come from four sources: the bureaucracy; the judiciary; the blue states; and the MSM. What can be expected from them, and how will Trump respond?

As to bureaucratic efforts to resist unwise or illegal directions, Trump is already prepared to deal with them; he intends to put loyalists in charge of the deep state and will fire anyone who gets in his way. The Supreme Court, which is reactionary but not Trumpist, will be ignored; Trump will simply refuse to comply with court orders that he doesn’t like. The real questions revolve around the blue states and the MSM. Will Trump use the military, through the Insurrection Act, to quash dissent and enforce compliance with his will? And will the military follow orders that are clearly in violation of the Constitution?

Let’s hope we never find out.

Both of them were sent by God to save their followers, and both were crucified by the deep state for it. The difference is that Jesus was only crucified once; Trump goes through it on a daily basis.

The GOP as a whole has no use for democracy, as evidenced by its extreme gerrymandering, contempt for the outcomes of referenda, consistent embrace of positions that poll poorly, and approval of measures making voting more difficult. Trump is an exemplar, not an outlier, within his party on those points. What, then, sets him apart from the rest of the GOP?

Trump’s claim to be fighting to protect the integrity of our 2020 election was pure eyewash; there is plenty of evidence showing that he knew he lost, but he didn’t consider his loss to be legitimate, because as far as he’s concerned, only “real Americans” should have the right to vote, and they overwhelmingly supported him. The fact that many GOP House members voted against certifying the election is strong evidence that a large segment of the party agrees with him. That isn’t the answer to the question.

No, what sets Trump apart is his contempt for liberal norms. He openly talks about firing huge numbers of civil servants and replacing them with MAGA loyalists, directing the DOJ to prosecute his enemies, and using the Insurrection Act to clamp down on political dissent. His enthusiasm for tariffs is largely based on his legal ability to grant exemptions to people who suck up to him. He has said that anything the president does is legal by definition. He is an autocrat; he demands the legal ability to behave arbitrarily and to ignore the constitutional rights of Americans who disagree with him.

That, my friends, is why he is such a threat to our system. He hates both pillars of liberal democracy.

Many commentators, including myself, have argued that Trump represents a clear and present danger to American liberal democracy. What do we mean by that?

Let’s start by defining two concepts that are actually quite different. “Democracy” means the rule of the majority of citizens, however that is ascertained–the devil is in the details. After all, the CCP claims to be “democratic.” The fundamental assumptions behind “democracy” are: that sovereignty rests in the citizenry (not God, a conqueror, or some limited group of people); that the well-being of each citizen is equally important to society, even if every person has different levels of ability; that since every citizen has an equal stake in good government, he has an equal right to participate in that government; and that crowds have more wisdom than any individual.

“Liberalism” evolved in England after the 17th century; it thus long predated “democracy.” “Liberalism” assumes that society is the sum of its individual parts, and that the best way to have a thriving society is to protect the right of each individual to pursue his own development and interests without unnecessary interference from government. “Liberalism” is thus the antithesis of autocracy; it calls for checks and balances within government to prevent any one individual from having arbitrary power, and it protects the individual rights of the governed from the excesses of government. Freedom of speech, association, religion, and the press are highly valued in liberal countries, as are the consistent application of law to all citizens, limits on police behavior, and a depoliticized law enforcement system.

Trump is a threat to both the “liberal” and “democratic” pillars of liberal democracy. I will discuss why in my next post.

She wasn’t just the first female justice of the Supreme Court; she was a genuine conservative (not a reactionary) and a swing vote. Nobody could take her support for granted. Any party who came before her had a reasonable chance, which gave the Supreme Court credibility with both the right and the left.

That’s gone. There are no swing votes on the current Court. The only disputes among the six right-wing justices are about how fast to move the train–not which direction it should go.

Joe Biden has always made it clear that he wanted to grow the economy for the benefit of working people, not the wealthy. His choice of means evolved over time and was tied to the prevailing conditions. Initially, he responded to the pandemic by supporting a substantial expansion of the welfare state. This proved to be only temporary, due to inflation, the end of the pandemic, and the lack of votes for the program in the Senate. The second phase–the current one–focuses on infrastructure improvements and massive subsidies for green manufacturing. The idea behind it, other than mitigating climate change, is to create new, high-paying manufacturing jobs, largely in areas that have been left behind over the past 20 years. Will it work, and will Biden get the credit for it?

The subsidies were the only climate change program available to Biden, and they should help with the environmental problem, but it is questionable whether they will make a dramatic difference to workers in the much larger context of the American economy. Manufacturing simply isn’t as big a part of the economy as it was 50 years ago, and finding enough qualified people to do the new jobs has been a problem. As for the credit part, it clearly isn’t working. Biden just hasn’t shown the ability to sell his programs to the American people, probably at least in part because he has been determined not to dominate the public consciousness the way Trump did.

It’s complicated.

A few years ago, I suggested that the best way to evaluate presidents on foreign policy was to use a graph with active and passive as one axis and interests and values as the other. Kissinger would have been at the top of the active/interests quadrant.

He clearly identified with Metternich, which made sense; after all, both of them were in charge of foreign policy in the country that had most to lose if they failed. Metternich’s career ended when he was driven out of power by a revolution in 1848, however. That should suggest to you that there are limits to anyone’s ability to keep the lid on.

In a lot of ways, Kissinger reminds me of Netanyahu, who believes in conflict management rather than solutions and thinks Israeli values and interests are ultimately the same. After all, if Israel doesn’t do what it has to do to survive in an overwhelmingly hostile environment, there are no Israeli values. Kissinger probably would have said the same thing about American liberal democracy during the Cold War; you had to make deals with dirty people and kill a lot of innocents to keep the beacon of democracy safe from Soviet imperialism, which was the ultimate value.

A lot of people really hated Henry. If you lived in Chile or Cambodia, you probably had reason. I don’t, so I had mixed feelings about him.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that foreign policy realism, to be complete and effective, has to include an understanding of America’s messianic streak. Ideology and national character cannot be completely divorced from realism, and circumstances evolve with time. If you don’t understand that, you look like a 21st century King Lear, screaming about change and trying fruitlessly to bomb it out of existence.

Or, to put it another way, values do exist independently of interests, and they have to be considered and accommodated as part of the geopolitical equation.

It might have been well-intentioned, but the Trump/Rubio plan to overthrow the Maduro government was a complete failure. It generated lots of misery and migrants without accomplishing its purpose.

Biden clearly plans to change the existing regime change policy, and with good reason. Leaving aside the fact that it wasn’t working, a policy of accommodation could lead to lower gas prices and fewer desperate illegal immigrants at the border.

You would think the GOP would support this–at least, the reduction in illegal immigration part. Don’t hold your breath. The Venezuelan immigrants the GOP says it despises are vehemently anti-socialist and have helped turn Florida red. The GOP will therefore continue to rant about illegal immigration, while profiting from it at the polls.

Rishi Sunak is a PBP. Liz Truss is a CL. Boris Johnson is a Reactionary. They have very different visions about what is best for Britain, but they were all leaders of the Conservative Party.

Is it any wonder that the leadership of the party keeps changing? Is it any surprise that the party doesn’t seem to know what it is doing or where it is going?

Donald Trump has managed to avoid any public scrutiny of his extreme positions by refusing to debate. If the debates are to be meaningful, that has to change. But how?

By reframing the questions to include his positions. The candidates who show up should be encouraged to discuss them. Here are some examples:

1. From all indications, Donald Trump wants to force Ukraine to capitulate to Putin by cutting off aid. Do you agree with that?
2. Trump has also indicated on occasion that he thinks America should withdraw from NATO. Would you do that?
3. Trump has said many complimentary things about Xi and Putin. Do you agree with him?
4. Trump clearly believes that human rights issues should be put on a back burner in our relationships with China and Russia. Do you agree?
5. Trump has suggested on occasion that he would exchange support for Taiwan for a better trade deal with China. Would you do that?
6. From published reports, it appears that Trump wanted to bomb Iran during his last days in office. Under what circumstances would you do that?
7. Trump wants to impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports. That would be a huge tax increase on average Americans and would alienate our allies. Do you agree with that?
8. Do you support the Trump plan to further cut corporate taxes?
9. Trump has said recently that he wants to try again to repeal and replace Obamacare. Would you do that?
10. Trump has said many times that he wants to send American special forces into Mexico to kill producers and sellers of illegal drugs. That would be opposed by the Mexican government and would result in America being at war with Mexico. Would you do that?
11. Trump has stated very clearly that he plans to direct the DOJ to prosecute his political opponents. Do you think that is appropriate?
12. Trump has called his political opponents “vermin.” Do you think the roughly 50 percent of Americans who vote for Democrats are vermin?

This approach puts Trump front and center during the debates. If he won’t show up to defend himself, the other candidates would be in a position to punish him.

Do you remember the pandemic? You should. Over a million Americans died. The economy was at a standstill. The welfare state expanded dramatically, and successfully, to alleviate suffering. Crime went up significantly, starting in 2020. Trump responded to the crisis by refusing to wear a mask, because he thought it would show weakness to the base. He told us to eat bleach. One day, he would say he was in charge; the next, he insisted that the problems were overblown, or that he had nothing to do with it. His irresponsibility probably cost him the election.

If the polls are right, most Americans have forgotten all of this. They don’t remember Trump’s erratic behavior, or what dire straits the economy was in at the time of the election, or how government aid was so critical to such a large number of people. All they know is that prices aren’t what they used to be, even if wages are higher, too. They want the economy of 2019. They blame Biden for not giving it to them, even though inflation was obviously the product of the pandemic.

It is up to the Biden campaign, and to the rest of us, to make America remember again. The baseline is November of 2020, not 2019.

Hamas and the Israelis have extended the pause in the fighting for two more days in order to exchange more hostages for fairly low value prisoners. The current exchange rate is 3:1. What happens when the pause expires?

The most important long-range questions, of course, revolve around the length of the occupation and who runs Gaza after the Israelis leave. The short-range questions are as follows:

1. Will the Israelis agree to release active Hamas fighters trapped in the tunnels to Syria or Lebanon in exchange for the rest of the hostages?
2. What kind of campaign will the Israelis run in the parts of Gaza that they do not currently occupy?

As to #1, my best guess is that the current exchange rate will continue to operate, although Israeli public opinion will make deals involving active Hamas fighters harder to sell, so this is hardly a given. As to #2, world public opinion will not let the Israelis engage in any kind of shock and awe tactics in areas that have been set aside for Palestinian civilians. The Israeli campaign will consequently look more like a low-key police action, with commando raids and identity checks instead of bombs, missiles, and tanks.

Israeli commentators, and some Americans, are fond of comparing Hamas to IS. How do the two stack up?

Consider the following:

HAMAS/IS

Brutal terrorists Yes/Yes

Sunni fundamentalists Yes/Yes

Iranian allies Yes/No

Ultimate objective Destroy Israel/Universal Caliphate

Belief in democracy Slight/None

AND THE WINNER IS . . . Hamas. There really are nothing but losers here, but Hamas is breaking even in the world court of public opinion, and its chances of crushing the Israelis, however microscopic, exceed the likelihood of the universal caliphate.