Cromwell

An NYT poll shows Trump and Biden tied at 43 percent. The question you should be asking is, “Who the hell are the other 14 percent?”

My best guess is that it consists of three groups:

1. Left-leaning young people who insist that there is no real difference between the two candidates;
2. Transactional voters who want to see the state of the economy before they choose; and
3. Anti-Trump conservative voters who want an alternative to Biden.

The good news here is that history suggests that all three of these groups will vote predominantly for Biden when the rubber hits the road. The perceived state of the economy will be the wild card.

Life in the time of Trump.

The third indictment’s here.

Will it suffice to change some minds?

The odds are poor, I fear.

By all accounts, the man is mad.

He’s seeking retribution.

And that should please the ones who want

A counterrevolution.

As I’ve noted before, Trump is an identity politician–not an ideological one. That means he is under no obligation to be consistent from an ideological perspective; all he needs to do is say things that please his elderly white base. He is very good at that. It is what makes him difficult to beat, at least in a GOP primary.

DeSantis doesn’t have that advantage. His task at the beginning of the campaign was to choose a series of ideologically consistent positions different from Trump’s that would appeal to the majority of GOP voters. Logically, he could have done this in two different ways:

1. He could have run as a national conservative, combining worker-friendly populist economics with a strong dose of social conservatism; or
2. Based on his record during the pandemic, he could have postured himself as a Reaganesque freedom fighter, which would have pleased and united the donor class without offending the base.

He didn’t do either of those things. Instead, he put all of his money on fighting wokeness, which essentially made him an even less likable version of Ted Cruz trying to win votes from the immovable MAGA base instead of the persuadable GOP majority. To no one’s surprise, it is clear from the polls that this tactic has already failed. Now, you are seeing evidence that he is moving slowly to the center on issues such as January 6 and abortion, probably at the behest of his donors. At this stage, that will only make his message dissolve into complete incoherence and make his downfall even more inglorious.

Donald Trump has no limits; he proved that on January 6. He wants a presidency with no guardrails so he can seek vengeance against all of his enemies. That is, in fact, the entire rationale behind his candidacy; it’s not as if he has any ideas to make anyone’s life better, or even any interest in doing so.

We know from extensive and bitter experience that nobody in the GOP is going to stand in his way. So how can we be sure he won’t declare martial law, send all of his opponents to Guantanamo Bay, and shut down the internet and all of the MSM except a few right-wing TV networks if he wins? We don’t. We just don’t.

In light of this, does it make sense to put up a third candidate who promises to work together with both parties–one whose nominee is trying to save liberal democracy, and one whose nominee wants to destroy it– to bring consensus to America? That sounds like suicide to me.

The cultural right is convinced that Hollywood is determined to make America woke. Is there any truth to the allegation?

The ongoing strike involving actors and writers should tell us that Hollywood is not monolithic. The striking artistic types are mostly young, talented, and financially insecure; it is probably fair to assume that they are predominantly woke. Decisions regarding the films and TV shows that are actually made, however, rest in the hands of capitalists. They are not woke, on the whole; their only concern is making money.

In my experience, some TV shows and movies are, in fact, advertisements for wokeness; the capitalists agreed to make them because they perceived there was an audience for them that justified the investments. Most shows and movies, however, don’t have any messages touching on wokeness. The allegation, taken as a whole, is false.

The right thinks the federal bureaucracy is dominated by leftists; that’s why it’s a “deep state.” Does that make sense?

The key concept here is self-selection. It is highly likely, for example, that environmentalists are overrepresented in the EPA; why would someone with strong feelings about property rights want to work there? But what about the FBI, which is, of course, led by a Trump nominee? Does anyone seriously believe that rabid leftists are attracted to law enforcement as a career? Is that even slightly plausible?

Take the DOJ as another example. Lawyers are, by and large, a conservative group; they are affluent enough to have something to lose, and they practice in a field that revolves around precedent. The attorneys at the DOJ are required to follow and enforce the written rules, regardless of their personal predispositions about politics. There is no reason to believe they don’t.

Most of the jobs in the bureaucracy are occupied by powerless timeservers who don’t care one way or the other if the government is run by the right or the left. A few stray agencies have mission with ties to a particular ideology, as with the EPA and the FBI. Taken together, they don’t amount to anything like a “deep state” dominated by the left.

What the reactionaries actually object to is not a politically-driven “deep state,” but one that is predictable and bound by rules and clearly identified procedures. Trump doesn’t think he should be subject to any rules. That’s why part of his agenda is to eliminate guardrails and subject government completely to his personal whims.

It’s 2024. The trial has been going on for weeks. Smith’s team has put on a lengthy parade of witnesses to discuss what Trump did and what he said about the supposedly rigged election. Now it’s time for the defense to respond.

Trump testifies. How can he not, under the circumstances? He not only insists that he genuinely believed the election was rigged at the time; he goes on to argue that, in retrospect, the allegation was true. In other words, he makes his standard stump speech in the courtroom. Why wouldn’t he? What better evidence can he provide of his mental state at the time the alleged crimes took place? Why not kill two birds with one stone?

But now Smith’s team gets to cross-examine him. The weight of the world is on their shoulders. How do they perform under pressure? How does Trump respond in a forum that he cannot control?

We’ll know in about a year. Unfortunately, it won’t be on TV, so the base won’t believe it if he makes a fool of himself and is convicted. They will just assume he was railroaded by an Obama judge and a liberal D.C. jury.

In an article in New York Magazine that everyone should read, Jonathan Chait lays out a theme espoused by the New Right that apparently is gaining plenty of traction in the GOP mainstream. The gist of it is that the left has been quietly, but doggedly seeking control of all of America’s institutions over the past 50 years or so, and has succeeded. As a result, it is necessary for the right to take over and use the powers of government in order to restore our society to the way it was in the good old days. Chait, who obviously has some familiarity with Chinese history, calls this theory “The Long March.”

Based on Chait’s analogy, the logical questions you should ask are:

1. Who was the American version of Mao?
2. What was the American equivalent of the Chinese Communist Party?

There is no plausible answer to these questions, of course. “The left,” which extends roughly from me to Bernie Sanders, contains a wide range of opinions. “The left” had little money (at least, compared to “the right”), no plan, no organization capable of secretly infiltrating institutions, and no leader. To the extent that American political and cultural institutions reflect liberal thought, it is due to two things: self-selection; and the general, if belated, understanding that women and minorities in America got a raw deal over the last few centuries. In other words, “the left” won the hearts and minds of America by making it aware of past injustices, and the reactionaries want to use political power to overturn that victory.

I will be discussing the state of various elements of the supposedly corrupt liberal establishment over the next few days.

Ross Douthat has always had religion; now he wants to find history, too. That’s my field, not his. Having traveled to the UK and read a book or two, he thinks there is a direct line connecting the Jacobites to today’s right-wing populists. Is he right?

No, for two reasons:

1. The current dichotomy between the reactionary countryside and the progressive city has no relationship to Jacobitism. The Country Party arose in opposition to the Stuarts, not in support of them.
2. There was never any meaningful support for Jacobitism in England; it was a Scottish and Irish phenomenon based on nationalism. Is Scottish nationalism truly analogous to the battle between disgruntled white retirees and supposedly woke corporations and intellectuals? I don’t think so.

The historical analogy I would suggest to Douthat is between his friends in the New Right and the Ultras in the time of Louis XVIII and Charles X. Look it up.

The new indictment is clearly intended to legally advance the narrative of Trump’s threat to liberal democracy while avoiding questionable claims and unnecessary delays. That makes sense. On balance, I agree with the way Smith is handling the issue.

But this is the third indictment. Appalling as it will seem a few years from now, the drill is depressingly familiar to us. Trump will portray himself as the victim of the vengeful deep state; he will successfully make use of the indictment as a fundraising tactic; and there will be lots of GOP screaming about the politicization of the judicial system and vows of retribution.

And we know there is a fourth one in the offing. I’m becoming uncomfortably numb to the new routine. My guess is that the rest of America feels the same way.

The prominent culture warrior and DeSantis supporter Christopher Rufo had a column in the NYT a few days ago which made the following points:

1. His objective is to eliminate cancel culture in state universities and restore freedom of thought, not to enforce reactionary ideology on the students and faculty; and
2. It is appropriate for state governments to use their political and legal powers to make sure that state universities reflect the values of the voters.

Are his arguments plausible? Here is what I think:

1. The overall record in Florida makes it crystal clear that the ultimate objective is to stifle left-wing opinion, not just to create safe spaces for conservatives. DeSantis believes in a veto for reactionary hecklers, not freedom of inquiry.
2. While Rufo’s argument that educational systems should reflect the values of the voters makes sense, it raises questions that he doesn’t bother to answer. Why should the will of state voters control over both national and local voters, particularly in the case of secondary education? Should the financial power of the federal government be used to overturn the values of either blue or red state voters? What happens to education when the apparent opinions of the voters change? Aren’t the employees of educational institutions entitled to some say as to how they are run? If not, as a practical matter, how are all of them going to be kept in line and replaced, as necessary?

In short, these issues are far more complicated than Rufo would have you believe.

Having listened to me (LOL), DeSantis released an economic policy package yesterday. Having actually not listened to me, it is a collection of standard GOP talking points added to mindless attacks on China, woke corporations, and universities. It basically tells the donor class that he will leave them alone if they shut up, and it tells struggling reactionary workers that he has nothing to offer them. It is neither aggressively populist nor an imaginative effort to help business. In short, it is an opportunity lost.

DeSantis also told the world he thought abortion restrictions should be left to the states. In isolation, that is a perfectly reasonable position to take; in context, it is suicide. DeSantis needs the rabidly anti-abortion crowd in Iowa to vote for him; now, they will vote for Pence or Scott. He will be attacked from the left for signing a draconian abortion bill in Florida, and from the right for not supporting a national ban. Tactically, it makes no sense.

I think this is the end for DeSantis. I just don’t see how he can recover from this. Even his wife can’t save him now.

One of Trump’s greatest “accomplishments” was to change the electoral model for GOP candidates. Before him, the typical candidate ran hard to the right during the primaries, but moved to the center to pick up swing votes during the general election; Trump, on the other hand, argued that electoral success required nonstop pandering to the base, with no pivot during the general election. The Trump model failed in 2018, 2020, and 2022, but most Republicans still adhere to it. What does that mean for the PBPs?

It means the GOP will assume they have nowhere else to go and take their votes for granted in 2024. And it means, if they want to be heard, they need to unite behind a candidate other than Trump or DeSantis who will take their concerns seriously, and stop talking so much about retribution and wokeness.

Clarence Thomas is a Catholic. So is Samuel Alito. So is Ron DeSantis. So are Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermeule, Ross Douthat, and Michael Anton. Rod Dreher used to be one. What else do these men have in common? They are all prominent reactionaries, of course. They are intellectual leaders of the New Right; their opinions will matter to the next Republican president; and they don’t have much respect for American liberal democracy.

Is that a coincidence? It would be absurd to argue that most Catholics are reactionaries, or that most reactionaries are Catholics, but the answer is no. The Catholic Church is authoritarian by design, and has a history of behaving despotically that predates the Declaration and the Constitution by centuries. Its leaders admire Thomas Aquinas, not Thomas Jefferson. Anyone who completely embraces its intellectual traditions and political pretensions is going to have a hard time reconciling them with the checks and balances inherent in liberal democracy.

The practical problem for Catholic reactionary leaders is that only a very small percentage of Americans (including Catholic voters) accept their opinions. They don’t even speak for a majority of reactionaries–the numbers favor right-wing Protestants, whose very different governing style was largely created in opposition to Catholic authoritarianism. As a result, the American Catholic theocracy they really want is never going to happen. The best they can possibly hope for is a loose united front with reactionary evangelical Protestants aimed at suppressing non-believers in which the evangelicals will hold most of the power.

C: The debates are scheduled to start in about a month. How would you assess the campaign so far?

S: Great!

M: Terrible!

C: Let’s start with you, Sebastian. Why are you so happy about the way things are going?

S: Because Trump is way ahead in the polls. He’s kicking DeSanctus ass all over the place. DeSanctus will be back in Florida crying his eyes out in a few months. He’s toast.

C: Why do you prefer Trump to DeSantis?

S: Because he was owning the libs long before DeSantis ever thought of it. Because DeSantis owes him his job. And because Trump is determined to burn it down. I know I can trust him on that. With DeSanctus, who knows? He’d probably just sell me out.

C: Aren’t you impressed with DeSantis’ record on wokeness?

S: I don’t even know what that means. It doesn’t have anything to do with my life. Trump is going to punish the people I hate–that’s all I need to know.

C: Mark, why do you say the campaign has been terrible?

M: Because nobody is talking about the issues that I care about. Trump just wants to burn it down and stick it to the people he hates–including me, I suppose. He doesn’t even pretend to have a program to make my life better; it’s all about him and revenge. And all DeSantis talks about is wokeness. What does that mean to me? Not a damn thing.

S: At least we agree on something.

C: You don’t think uprooting wokeness will improve your life?

M: I’m a car dealer. I’m worried about labor costs, taxes, and regulations. I don’t have any trans employees, and I doubt I have any trans customers. It just doesn’t matter to me.

C: How is your business?

M: We’re doing well, thank you. We’re not selling as many cars as we used to, but with the price increases, we’re making more money than ever before.

C: Some people call that greedflation.

M: I call it the free enterprise system. If you don’t like it, move to China.

C: Do you have a candidate at this point?

M: Not really. Maybe Tim Scott. I just want someone to start talking about the economy in a way that makes sense. The other stuff is less important.

C: Let me change topics completely at this point. Did either of you see “Barbie?”

M: My wife went. She loved it. I stayed home and watched sports.

S: Hell will freeze over before I would go to that movie.

C: Why?

S: All that crap about the patriarchy. The Bible says men are supposed to rule over women. God is a man. That’s all I need to know.

C: Do you think Barbie is a feminazi?

S: Absolutely! Women have way too much power in this country. That’s why we’ve gone completely soft. In my day, that movie wouldn’t even have been made, because nobody would have watched it. That’s why we need Trump–to take us back where we were when we were great.

M: My wife would disagree with you on that.

S: Who cares what she thinks? Or what you think, you RINO?

M: I’m out of here.