Cromwell

I don’t normally read books about Trump, but I bought and read “The Divider” because I thought it might tell me something about the man on golf cart that I didn’t already know. It did; I learned that Trump tried to force the sale of CNN to Rupert Murdoch by abusing anti-trust law.

Putting the MSM in reliably right-wing hands to quash any meaningful dissent is a critical part of the Orbanization process. If the GOP wins the 2024 election, look for more of this kind of activity early in the new president’s term.

The new right-wing Israeli government consists of two parts: a moribund mainstream party that has turned into a personality cult for its ethically challenged leader; and a motley crew of extremists that wants to make life as miserable as possible for people that aren’t, in their view, “real Israelis.” Is this ringing any bells?

Imagine a second Trump government with Rudy as AG, Michael Flynn as Secretary of State, Kris Kobach as the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Ron DeSantis as the head of a new agency–call it the Department of Cultural Affairs–tasked with rooting out all vestiges of wokeness in America. That’s about what this government offers.

It seems fairly clear that a majority of the Court intends to reject the Eastman version of the “independent state legislature theory” in favor of a standard which permits the federal courts to overturn only outrageously wrong state court decisions at the request of the legislature. That should eliminate at least some of the danger of a soft legislative coup after presidential elections, which is a good thing.

My concern is that the new standard (I will call it the “due process standard”) will be nebulous enough to permit the Court to authorize extreme gerrymanders in red states and overturn them in blue states. It will look like the completely contrived “major questions” doctrine in practice: a license for the Court to help Republicans whenever it sees fit, which experience tells us will be almost always.

That’s a different danger to the system, but a serious one, nonetheless.

As I’ve noted many times before, a stable liberal democracy requires a reasonable and constructive center-right party, and today’s GOP isn’t it. How would the party have to change to meet my standards, and how do we get to Point B from Point A?

As to the first question, here is the list:

1. The GOP has to break from its anti-democratic, authoritarian wing;
2. The GOP has to stop demonizing blue America and relying solely on its base in order to win elections; and
3. The GOP has to give up the notion that tax cuts are always the answer, regardless of what the question is.

The only way the party will reform itself is if it continues to lose elections, preferably by large margins. There is a glimmer of hope on that point after the midterms. There is no sign, however, that Trump has lost his hold on at least a substantial portion of the reactionary base. Until that happens, there is little reason for optimism about the health of either the GOP or our political system.

I’m guessing that Biden thinks the relatively favorable outcome of the midterms provides support for a re-election campaign and a second term. If so, I don’t agree. The viability of a re-election campaign, in my eyes, is tied completely to the likelihood that the GOP will nominate Trump. Running a man in his eighties against DeSantis would be a disaster.

That said, the decision will apparently come early next year. When, exactly, should he announce, and will he face a primary?

Most commentators believe (and I concur) that DeSantis will announce shortly after the end of Florida’s regular legislative session. Biden probably should make his decision no later than then. As to the likelihood of a primary, the answer is no. The challenge logically would come from the left, but Biden embraced virtually all of the progressive agenda in his first two years, so the left has no reason to be dissatisfied with him. In any event, with a GOP majority in the House and an unfavorable Senate playing field in 2024, the agenda is going nowhere for the foreseeable future, so what’s the point?

By March of 2024, it was obvious to everyone that Trump was going to lose. The man on golf cart’s screams about the GOP establishment rigging the primaries against the popular will were becoming more and more shrill. While he was careful not to say it in so many words, the message was clear–the day for electoral politics had come to an end. The good people of real America were going to have to take matters into their own hands and destroy the deep state by force. There was no other way.

The message was heard. Trump had burned his bridges with the militias by his equivocations after January 6, but a motley group of present and former military men, law enforcement officials, disgruntled small business owners, and extremist politicians hatched a plot to overthrow the government. The plot included plans to take control of the White House, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. The hope was that the armed forces would respond favorably and throw their support to the plotters once it was clear that the ice had been broken.

It all sounded a bit like John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry, and it failed just as ingloriously. Still, there were casualties, and the system was in real danger. Trump, as usual, denied involvement. The mainstream of the GOP condemned the plotters, but refused to draw the obvious conclusions about Trump’s culpability for fear of alienating the base and dividing the party. Nothing had changed, and nothing ever would, until the GOP dealt with the dilemma caused by the extremists.

(Inspired by the news of an abortive right-wing plot in Germany. If it could happen there, it jolly well could happen here.)

Stephen Miller has come to Florida to see Trump, who is happy to see a friendly face after a bad week.

T: Steve! How’s your band doing?

M: You know I hate that line.

T: I know, but I just can’t help myself. So why are you here?

M: We need to talk about the campaign. It’s off to a really bad start. Last night in Georgia didn’t help.

T: It’s all fake news. Walker didn’t want me to campaign for him, even though I made him what he is today. He paid the price.

M: You’re getting attacked by lots of Republicans in the MSM. The rats are fleeing the ship.

T: We need to show them who’s boss. Put the fear of God in them. Remind them who controls the base. That will shut them up–it always did before. They may not like me, but the base is like crack to them–they can’t live with or without it. They can’t have the base without me.

M: I agree, but you have a problem. Fox News has turned against you, you’re not on Twitter, and the MSM are defining your campaign. You need an issue to rally the base and a mouthpiece to do it.

T: I can’t give up Truth Social, at least not yet. That leaves Fox.

M: Can you offer Rupert something?

T: Let me think . . . I can tell him that I will force the sale of CNN and the NYT to him once I’m back in office. He would like that.

M: How would you do that?

T: Regulatory harassment. Tax problems. Stuff like that. It’s what the presidency is for.

M: And the issue?

T: We’ll just play the hits. Wokeness, illegal immigrants, and crime. They always work.

M: Maybe we could do something to scare up a migrant caravan.

T: Good idea! And if we could find a good illegal immigrant criminal who preys on real Americans, that would be great, too! Two for the price of one!

M: I’m on it, boss. (He leaves)

I was making the case to my wife that Herschel Walker was the worst GOP senatorial candidate in my lifetime a few days ago. She responded by voting for Roy Moore. On reflection, I had to agree with her; for a Republican to lose in Alabama was quite an extraordinary feat. Walker, at least, lost in a purple state.

Losing in Georgia with a hand-picked candidate is obviously a huge blow to Trump. Here are my observations on the matter:

1. Trump might have endorsed Walker, but nobody forced him on the GOP primary voters. Why did they pick such a poor candidate? Either they simply trusted Trump’s judgment or were as dazzled by Walker’s celebrity as the man on golf cart was.
2. Will this latest loss with a Trumpist candidate cause the Georgia GOP to sober up? We’ll see.
3. Walker asked Trump to stay away from the state at the end of the campaign, which suggests that Trump is even less popular than he was. How can the GOP possibly nominate someone in 2024 who is even more toxic than Walker in a swing state?

Tomorrow, the Court will hear oral arguments in the Moore case, which involves the authority of the North Carolina Supreme Court to interpret state constitution provisions relating to gerrymandering. Republicans in the state legislature are relying on the “independent state legislature” argument to make the case that the NCSC has no power to limit their ability to gerrymander. The Court will have to disregard language in two of its fairly recent decisions–one regarding the federal courts and gerrymanders, and the other involving nonpartisan state legislative boundary commissions–if it wants to side with the NC Republicans. In addition, a decision in favor of the NC Republicans could ultimately cost the GOP seats in the House, as legislators in states like New York would have the same right to gerrymander that they do. As a result, I think even this reactionary Court is unlikely to side with the NC Republicans. But the issues in the case go far beyond redistricting.

Many commentators–including prominent conservative legal scholars–believe that this case could have a seriously destabilizing impact on presidential elections. Others disagree and argue that the federal courts can and will serve as an adequate backstop to protect the integrity of our system even if the Court accepts the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Who is right?

For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a claim relating to a state election, it will have to find a question relating to the Constitution or some federal statute; it doesn’t have any authority over purely state law questions. With that in mind, consider the following scenarios:

1. The legislature of a red state simply cancels a presidential election and awards its electoral votes to Donald Trump.
2. The same legislature holds the election, but ignores its outcome, and identifies Trump as the winner on the day of the election.
3. The same legislature holds the election, but throws out the votes from every large metropolitan area in the state on the ground that “everyone knows elections there are corrupt.” It certifies Trump as the winner of the election.
4. The same legislature, having adopted a statute permitting mail voting, decides to throw out all mail votes, which it knows to be predominantly in favor of Democrats. Trump consequently carries the state.

How do these scenarios play out in federal court? #1 can probably be attacked as a violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and federal election laws. The same would be true of #2. #3 would appear to be inconsistent with the holding in Bush v. Gore, which applied the equal protection language in the Fourteenth Amendment to federal voting rights, although the Court has never taken that case seriously as a precedent. But #4? I’m not at all sure there would be an obvious way to get into federal court under that scenario.

In my opinion, therefore, the concern about Moore is completely justified.

No member of the Senate is more closely associated with Trump than Lindsey Graham. It isn’t because he’s stupid; it’s because he’s a spineless opportunist who savors access to power and thinks he can direct it in limited, but meaningful ways by doing whatever it takes to stay in Trump’s inner circle. He shares those characteristics with several other former members of the Trump team who are considering running for president–Haley, Pompeo, Pence, Christie, et. al.

But the rise of DeSantis has given Lindsey a choice. Will he remain allied with a man whose public utterances about our system are getting more dangerous and deranged by the day, or will he finally jump ship? If the latter, how is he going to defend his obsequiousness over the last six years, particularly when he gets blasted for disloyalty by the man on golf cart?

If you’re looking for an indication of how much support Trump has lost since 2020, this would be a good place to start.

In order to succeed, imperialists typically have to believe that they represent a higher order of civilization than the people they aspire to rule. For the imperial regime to last, the colonized people have to believe it, too. Once that belief is gone, the empire ultimately goes with it.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a large part of an imperial project. Since he insists that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia–in essence, Russia’s little brother, to be bossed around by big brother–he can’t very well argue that he is bringing civilization to the great unwashed. How, then, does he justify his claims?

I think, from Putin’s perspective, the analogy he would find most appropriate is Lincoln waging war on the Confederacy to maintain the Union. He’s wrong, of course; the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine is far longer, and more complex, than that. But what else could he say?

For DeSantis and his base, the legislation terminating the Reedy Creek Improvement District is Exhibit A in his battle against wokeness. It shows just how far he will go, and what risks he will run, to strike a blow in the culture wars. It makes him look like a more effective version of Trump.

But for moderates, the Disney legislation is Exhibit A in the case against the Hungarian Candidate. It looks like a Trump tweet turned into law. It is a violation of First Amendment rights, done on a whim and without any kind of serious planning, which could end very badly for Florida’s taxpayers. It is despotism, pure and simple.

Whatever gains DeSantis might have pocketed as a result of the legislation have passed their expiration date. If he wants to be president, he needs to end this dispute as quickly as possible. Expect the Florida Legislature to essentially repeal 90 percent of the legislation, while keeping some cosmetic parts of it in place. DeSantis will then declare victory and move on.

It’s kind of like what Putin should do in Ukraine, but won’t.

The Iranian government has made it clear for over 40 years that restrictions on women’s dress are required by God. It has been willing to kill and imprison countless Iranians to defend that principle. With that in mind, does anyone seriously believe the concession on the morality police is genuine? It is simply an effort to eliminate the pressure. Once the pressure is gone, the police will return.

The dissidents are not completely stupid, so they apparently understand this perfectly. And so, the battle in the streets will continue.

No serious commentator believes that the current Supreme Court is going to rule against the web designer in the case that will be argued tomorrow, given its passion for protecting Christians. And, in fact, the designer has a reasonable argument; who wants to be compelled to express support for beliefs one finds abhorrent? The real question, however, is not the decision in this case; it is how far that decision can be stretched in the future.

The looming issue here is whether right-wing Christians will be permitted to refuse to serve blacks, or Jews, or other ethnic and religious minorities in violation of various civil rights laws based on sincerely felt, but bigoted, religious views. I suspect the Court will bend over backwards to make it clear that it is not endorsing that kind of discrimination, because to do otherwise would confirm the left’s worst fears about the Court and embarrass its reactionary friends, who repeatedly and ferociously insist they are not bigots. But how can the line be drawn to provide a reasonable limit to this precedent?

There are two obvious answers. One is to say that the vast majority of jobs and businesses don’t involve the exercise of First Amendment rights; the web designer is an idea creator, but a restaurant owner, for example, is not. The second is to draw a line between traditional religious views about gay rights, based on clear doctrine and historical experience, and racial questions The Court would have to concede that some Christian denominations have put racial discrimination at the heart of their doctrine, but it would undoubtedly say that those were aberrations that do not exist today.

Are those common sense distinctions viable in the long run? I have my doubts, but we’ll see.

It’s hard to overstate just how bereft of ideas the GOP is as a collective whole. In 2020, of course, the party platform was just to support the American Caligula in anything he might decide to do. In 2022, GOP candidates complained about crime and inflation without proposing any plausible ways of dealing with them. We can expect something similar in 2024. Since the party is not really full of morons, what’s going on here?

Two things. First, the party is badly divided on ideological grounds, so talking about ideas threatens party unity, which is viewed as the key to electoral success. You can keep everyone on board by relying on least common denominator issues like CRT and “defund the police.” Second, to the extent that the GOP actually has a program, it is highly unpopular with voters. Mocking climate change, oppressing minorities, cutting Social Security and Medicare, and further reducing taxes on the wealthy is not exactly a winning formula. Why would you talk about something that costs you votes when you can win with swagger, nostalgia, and culture wars?