Cromwell

Vox failed to meet expectations in the Spanish election, and the reactionaries lost control of the UK when Boris left town, but elsewhere, things are looking up. A reactionary is the PM of Italy; a reactionary will probably go into the next French presidential election as the favorite; the German reactionary party could be in the next government; and, of course, the most dangerous reactionary of all is the presumptive GOP nominee for president in the US. Right-wing populism is a European as well as an American phenomenon. Why?

Europe and the US have three things in common:

1. The replacement of a manufacturing-based economy with one based on services and knowledge, which devalues the strengths of men and consequently threatens their social and economic status relative to women;
2. Large amounts of illegal immigration; and
3. Decreasing numbers of Christians, which troubles the devout greatly.

These issues aren’t going away any time soon, so neither are the reactionaries.

Most extreme right-wingers view Trump as the ideal instrument to burn it down; his anger and narcissism, which are liabilities to most politicians, to them are guarantees that he will stop at nothing to destroy American liberal democracy in his and their interest. Let’s assume they’re right. What happens next? What is the reactionary scheme for America after liberal democracy is dead?

As far as I can tell, there are three separate visions:

1. RETURN OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION: This is the essence of the “national divorce” recommended by MTG. I discussed the logical and practical issues with it in a previous series, but it has the advantages of being grounded in American history and leaving the blue states more or less alone.
2. RULE OF THE TECH BROS: Musk and Thiel have allied themselves with reactionaries in the hope of sweeping away regulations and giving themselves complete freedom to do whatever they want. It is a bargain that is likely to end badly for them, given the nature of the people on the other side of the deal, but they call themselves geniuses, so what do I know?
3. NATIONAL THEOCRACY: Christians will regain the absolute right to govern America as they see fit. We will have a 21st century Test Act and lots of new federal statutes discriminating against non-Christians; the First Amendment as we have known it will cease to exist. The Catholic reactionary leaders of the movement would probably prefer to exclude evangelicals from the ruling class (see a future post), but that will prove impossible, so they will continue their alliance of convenience until an opportunity to break it presents itself.

Which of these visions is the most plausible? I would have to vote for #1.

As far as I can tell, Ron DeSantis viewed Jack Smith as his deus ex machina. He could campaign without laying a glove on Trump and still win, because the GOP electorate would never nominate someone who was under federal indictment. He could stand strong with the base, attack the deep state, unite the party, and have the nomination simply fall into his hands. It was perfect.

Except it wasn’t, because the base isn’t appalled by the indictments, which it views, regardless of the evidence, as more proof of the depravity of the deep state. As a result, Trump is way ahead in the polls. In addition, DeSantis is finding that his laser focus on wokeness is too abstract and remote from the everyday concerns of GOP voters to move them much. So what does he do now?

Plan B, logically, would be an economic plan that sets him apart from the other candidates and actually promises to make the lives of GOP voters better. This could take one of two completely different forms: either a populist-friendly focus on reactionary workers over capitalists; or a dramatic attempt to suck up to the donor class by offering some sort of radically regressive change to the tax system, such as a flat tax. The former has never been tried by any GOP presidential candidate in my lifetime; the latter has been proposed many times, and has always flopped miserably.

Will DeSantis choose one of these two options, or stick with the existing plan and watch his campaign go down the drain? We’ll see.

She said, “Your debutante just knows what you need, but I know what you want.”

—————-Dylan

The Democrats are a coalition of minorities, the well-educated, young people, and women. In an age of identity politics, is it any surprise that they really want a presidential nominee who looks like them: young; charismatic; black or racially mixed; and female or metrosexual? Someone like Barack Obama?

Biden clearly isn’t any of those things, which is why the party is, in Dylan’s words, “stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.” In spite of his mostly impressive record, millions of Democratic voters don’t really want him to run again. But Biden is the perfect foil for Trump. As an old white guy with a record of moderation, he can’t be credibly accused of being woke or socialist. No one else in the Democratic party has those advantages.

In the end, it is the view of the Rolling Stones that prevails here. You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.

By what right do Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg set the rules for speech in America? For Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham, the answer is clear–none. They have proposed to create a new independent, bipartisan agency that would rein in the power and excesses of big tech. Is that a good idea?

It sounds like it, until you consider the following:

1. First Amendment rights are currently adjudicated by an allegedly apolitical body–the Supreme Court. How’s that working for you these days?
2. The new agency sounds a good deal like the FEC, which is completely impotent due to ongoing partisan wrangling.
3. Lindsey Graham’s favorite golfing buddy has already made it clear that he wants to put our existing independent agencies under presidential control pursuant to the unitary executive theory. If you add the legislative proposal to Trump’s ambitions, you are setting the stage for a GOP Secretary of Internet Censorship.

The bottom line here is that the Warren/Graham proposal would only work in a society in which there is general agreement about what is and isn’t protected speech. Without that agreement, leaving the issues to tech giants, while hardly a perfect solution, is probably the least unsafe way to deal with censorship questions.

Spain’s Socialist government had a pretty good argument to make to the electorate: unemployment was low; the economy was growing; and issues with the Basque and Catalonian nationalists were under better control. Nevertheless, the polls indicated that the government was going to lose badly. A right-wing government was a virtual certainty.

Sanchez made the election a referendum on right-wing extremism. It paid off; in spite of his low popularity ratings in the polls, the voters basically supported the status quo.

Does this bode well for Biden, who figures to run a similar campaign under similar circumstances? You bet it does.

If you wanted to describe DeSantis’ ideology in one short phrase, it would be “freedom for me, but not for thee.” The first part of this is libertarian, and plays well in blue states like New Hampshire; the second is reactionary, and is designed to appeal to social conservatives in red states, such as Iowa. As far as I can tell, DeSantis is trying to emphasize the first part in his campaign appearances in New Hampshire, but his war on wokeness is drowning out the pitch to libertarians. Is there anything he can do to fix this?

He needs to understand that his path to the nomination runs primarily through the blue states, and that his message should be calibrated accordingly. Trump is going to win a majority of the reactionary vote no matter what he does; trying to be crimson to Trump’s scarlet is a waste of time and money. If he has any sense, he will spend less time on wokeness and more on freedom.

Biden is trying to enforce a seriously flawed immigration statute with very limited resources in a way that is orderly, predictable, and humane. For his pains, he is being attacked in court by both the left and right. Both extremes are having some success in their respective federal forum of choice. Today’s decision by a California judge favoring the left on the latest immigration rule is a case in point.

What is the guy supposed to do? Without a lot more resources and a clear, reasonable legal standard, there is no solution to this problem. At some point, the posturing has to end, and the two sides need to deal with the practical implications of their preferred outcomes.

Update: I’ve read today’s opinion. It makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to the practical problems of dealing with countless thousands of asylum claims in this country. I’m willing to bet that the judge in Amarillo would see it differently.

Any number of prominent economists have been warning us for months that a nasty recession is just around the corner. Yesterday, The Economist and an NYT columnist made the case that the recession, although long delayed, is still coming. Are they right, or are they waiting for Godot?

The business cycle still exists, so at some point, they will inevitably be right. In the near future, however, the recession will only arrive if the wealthy consumers who are continuing to spend regardless of the Fed’s actions lose confidence and pull back. What could make that happen? I can only think of two things: an unanticipated external shock that crushes the markets and asset prices; or a decision by the Fed to dramatically increase rates and keep them artificially high for an unexpectedly long period of time. The former is possible; the latter is highly unlikely.

There is an important point to be made here: similar to presidential approval ratings, consumer confidence surveys aren’t as relevant as they used to be, because the dollar store economy runs on the spending of the affluent, not what is left of the middle class. Inflation and consumer spending are all tied to increasing levels of inequality in a way that was not true 20 years ago.

For whatever reason, Trump isn’t trying very hard to win in Iowa. He insulted the governor; he offended the anti-abortion activists; and he skipped campaign events. He may well not participate in most of the debates, as well. If he manages to prevail in Iowa in spite of all of this, the rest of the process will be a coronation. Nobody will have the resources and the momentum to stop him.

But assume for the moment that DeSantis takes advantage of the opportunity given to him, overwhelms Pence with grim determination and superior resources, and rides the social conservative vote to a narrow win in Iowa. He’s now roughly in the position that Cruz was in 2016. What happens next?

The DeSantis message of increasing government power to fight wokeness doesn’t resonate in libertarian New Hampshire. Christie, Scott, and Haley help to split the anti-Trump vote. Trump wins here by a fairly large margin even though he doesn’t have a majority.

Trump also wins in Nevada. Pence has already dropped out at this point, and Ramaswamy is a non-factor, since he doesn’t disagree with Trump on anything important. DeSantis doesn’t gain much traction in South Carolina, and Scott and Haley divide the hometown moderate vote. Trump wins, and Scott and Haley drop out, correctly seeing no realistic path to the nomination.

DeSantis is now effectively in a two-man race, which is what he wanted from the beginning. But he’s well behind, and he’s running out of resources. He absolutely has to win Florida to have a reasonable chance. Does he get it?

Probably not.

Maybe I can get Jason Aldean to cover this.

THE BATTLE HYMN OF RED AMERICA

Every morning I drive my truck

A mile or so to the 7-11

And buy up all the beer in stock.

I tell myself, this must be heaven.

_______________

Every day I go to work.

I kick the red clay off my shoes

And dream how Trump will burn it down.

It’s not like I have much to lose.

__________________________

Every night before I sleep

I hit my knees and ask for grace.

I pray to God to keep me free

And keep the liberals in their place.

____________

This is God’s country.

God’s country.

We’ll kick your ass if you don’t believe it.

This is God’s country.

God’s country.

If you don’t love it, feel free to leave it.

Progressives want Biden to spend more time talking about reforming the Supreme Court, and with good reason; the major questions doctrine is going to make it impossible for them to solve social problems with regulations. So far, Biden has refused. Why?

For a variety of reasons:

1. There is no realistic prospect of doing anything about the Court in the next few years;
2. Biden knows what happened to FDR’s ratings after his proposal to pack the Court;
3. He also knows that the Court has inadvertently handed him some important political gifts by overturning abortion rights and eliminating affirmative action; and
4. Most importantly, Biden undoubtedly plans to run as an institutional conservative against a reactionary extremist who suggested terminating the Constitution less than a year ago. He would be muddling the message of safety and stability by proposing any kind of dramatic Supreme Court reform in his platform.

I expect Supreme Court reform to be high on the priority list for the Democratic candidates in 2028. At that point, one way or another, Trump will be out of the picture. For now, however, Biden’s stance makes perfect sense.

The parties, the leaders, and the issues will seem depressingly familiar to Americans. In one corner, we have the blue team: the secular and progressive side that makes the money, pays the taxes, and fights the wars. In the other corner, we have the red team: the religious side that feels disrespected by the elite and wants to use politics to impose its values and get even. The religious side is led by a man who needs to stay in office and eliminate the few checks and balances in the system in order to avoid ongoing legal problems. Is this ringing any bells for you?

What is happening in Israel today could be the harbinger of similar events in this country if Trump wins in 2024. Let’s hope we don’t find out.

In light of the actions taken by DeSantis, the Florida Legislature, and their predecessors, what does the future hold for the Sunshine State? Here’s a reasonable guess:

1. As climate change gets worse, and property insurance becomes unaffordable for all except the very wealthy, working people will be forced to leave the state. Coastal areas will be dominated by hideously expensive elevated concrete caverns. The character of cozy coastal downtowns will be changed forever. Even residents of less affluent interior areas will be forced to leave.
2. The DeSantis war on wokeness is, in reality, largely a war on young people. They will leave, too.
3. Finally, the immigrants who perform most of the difficult physical labor will feel unwelcome, and will depart, as a result of the 2023 immigration legislation.

What you are left with is a state dominated culturally and politically by a relative handful of old, wealthy people, who will complain incessantly that nobody is around to cut their grass and fix their homes. Even they will flee Florida during the summer, as the heat and the hurricanes will make life unbearable after the end of March. But hey, look on the bright side! At least they will be free.

I don’t ordinarily deconstruct my own work, but I’m going to make an exception in this case. Here goes:

1. The post was inspired by an Ezra Klein interview with a novelist named Barbara Kingsolver, who basically tells us that white rural residents are the virtuous victims of contempt, indifference, and even malevolence from city dwellers. In her view, they are justified in supporting Trump, even if he operates against their interests in actual practice, because he shows them the respect they deserve, and hates the same people they do.
2. We can easily admit that there are plenty of urbanites who view rural America as “flyover country,” but the contempt runs both ways, and is ageless. Remember Al Smith? Remember the KKK? Remember the Know-Nothings? Remember Jefferson’s views of immigrants and cities? White Protestant America’s view of itself as the only true, incorruptible America in an existential battle with evil interlopers has existed for centuries. It doesn’t taste any better now than it did then, particularly since the left really wants to help these people, who seem to prefer anger and nostalgia to federal spending programs.
3. The snooty liberal establishment didn’t push opioids on rural residents; voracious capitalists did. In a similar vein, environmentalists didn’t close down the mines; the mine owners did, as a result of economic forces that were beyond the control of either group. The intellectual left consistently gets the blame for this, however.
4. Trump and his supporters clearly view struggling white rural residents through the lens of the Civil Rights Movement. I don’t buy it, for several reasons. First, the plight of white rural residents has never remotely approached the condition of slavery. Second, those residents always had the ability to leave and sand down their accents if necessary; black people cannot do that. Third, and most importantly, the vast majority of black people believe in liberal democracy, in spite of everything they have suffered throughout the centuries. White rural supporters of Trump, on the other hand, believe they are entitled to rule whether they represent a majority of voters or not, and they are perfectly willing to burn it down if they are unsuccessful in fair elections.
5. It is true that the “burn it down” crowd has an analogy in the handful of black protesters who have torched businesses over the years in an effort to bring attention to lingering injustice. The difference is that the protesters only burned down their own communities; white Christian reactionaries want to burn down the entire country.