Cromwell

Ron DeSantis hasn’t even announced he’s running for president, much less run any commercials or participated in any debates. And yet, based on the current state of the polls, some commentators are already writing him off. Is that fair?

Absolutely not. It’s way, way too early to draw conclusions like that; for one thing, the polls are all over the map. The one thing DeSantis genuinely has to worry about, however, is the attitude of Fox News. If Rupert Murdoch suddenly decides he’s a loser, he’ll make it up with Trump, and then DeSantis will be in real trouble. He’s not going to win without Fox in his corner.

The Israeli opposition claims to be defending “democracy.” The government, however, insists that making the judiciary more responsive to the electorate is “democratic.” Who is right?

It depends on how precisely you frame the question. If the issue is purely about majority rule, the government is right. The big picture, however, is about protecting minorities and individual rights from government overreaching; in other words, the actual issue is about liberal democracy, not any old kind of democracy. On that point, the opposition has a very strong case; the Netanyahu ideal, much like the Orban and Trump visions, is a government with no meaningful guardrails except occasional elections.

Some GOP leaders want to “save” Social Security and Medicare by increasing the retirement age. As I noted in a previous post, this was already done in 1983. Does it make sense to do it again?

It’s too late! The demographic problem that is causing the Social Security shortfall (the one that was fully anticipated 40 years ago) is the size of the Boomer generation relative to the number of taxpaying American workers. Many of the Boomers (like me) have already retired; all of them will be eligible for Medicare by 2029 and Social Security by 2031. A slow increase in the retirement age cannot, therefore, address this issue. The horse is already out of the barn.

The logical ways to deal with the Boomer problem are to get rid of the earnings cap, do a better job of controlling medical costs, and encourage young people to immigrate here. Period.

I used to watch Mark Russell specials religiously when I was growing up. I particularly loved his political song parodies. But he slipped out of my life, and I haven’t thought about him in decades.

His death made something clear to me–my blog owes a great deal to him, and I didn’t even know it. Now I do. Thanks, Mark, and rest in peace.

The race for the GOP nomination will, of course, be defined by Trump. His challengers will have to decide how to deal with him without alienating his voters. There are essentially three potential ways of doing this:

1. Accept all of Trump’s positions and run as a more competent and electable version of the man on golf cart;
2. Build bridges to both the 30 and the 70 percent by accepting most, but not all, of Trump’s positions and hope the big beasts falter; or
3. Confront Trump directly, unite the 70 percent, and win over the 30 percent during the general election campaign by talking about the horrors of a second Biden term. In other words, gamble that the 30 percent has nowhere else to go.

DeSantis is on the first track. Haley and the other potential candidates who served under Trump are on the second. If Chris Christie decides to run, he clearly plans to try #3.

I doubt it would work, but you certainly would like to see him give it a go, wouldn’t you?

I am not at all sure that the indictment was in the public interest. One argument that is being made against it does not convince me at all, however: that no one other than Trump would be prosecuted under this set of facts.

The argument presupposes that there are other people out there similarly situated to Trump. How many other New Yorkers were elected president in 2016 because they managed to conceal a relationship with a porn star by concealing hush money payments?

Ron DeSantis proudly told us “There’s a new sheriff in town” after the Florida Legislature approved his new Disney legislation. Unfortunately for him, it turns out that Disney signed a development agreement with the old board that effectively strips the new board of most of its regulatory power. The Hungarian Candidate and his minions are not pleased; meanwhile, Trump is crowing about how Mickey Mouse outwitted his sparring partner.

Ordinarily, I would have little sympathy for a giant corporation that, like the airlines, is determined to identify every possible aspect of a customer experience and charge for it. Given the nature of this dispute, however, Mickey has my full support.

When I was up in North Carolina, I usually bought my own 2-liter bottles of soda, so I knew very well how much they cost. In Florida, I have relied on my wife to do the grocery shopping; however, I bought soda for myself yesterday, and discovered that the price had increased a whopping 50 cents since the beginning of February. Why?

Have gas prices soared during the last two months? Has the cost of the materials needed to create and bottle soda gone up dramatically in that time? Have manufacturing wages skyrocketed in 2023?

No, to all of those questions. The price has gone up because the manufacturer has determined that the market will bear a higher price. In other words, the increased profit per unit more than offsets any loss in the number of units sold.

This is the problem with which the Fed is currently struggling. Interest rate hikes won’t solve it unless they cause the markets to tank and make people like me think we can’t afford overpriced soda anymore.

There is a long, and many would say ignoble, history of prominent American politicians arguing for the primacy of the states over the federal government. What is the basis for this claim, and does it hold water?

The argument is usually premised on the fact that the 13 states that ratified the Constitution existed before it did. The flip side of this, however, is that the vast majority of our current 50 states became states after the ratification of the Constitution, with the permission of the federal government, under conditions set by the federal government. As to the original 13 states, their boundaries and political systems were initially created, not by some Lockean agreement of their citizens, but by the King of England and groups of influential English courtiers; to cite one example, Pennsylvania was essentially the payment of a debt owed by Charles II to William Penn’s father. The American Revolution was fought to free us from these people. Why would we rely on them as the basis for our political system today?

If you don’t accept the first-in-time argument, you must then fall back on the idea that the locals have the most knowledge of local conditions and should therefore be permitted to govern themselves. That being the case, blue cities in red states should not have their legislation preempted, right? Right?

Here’s where the factions stand on public schools:

1. CLs: What, you mean government schools? They pick the pockets of taxpayers, eliminate consumer choice, and impose secular, racist, and anti-capitalist values that don’t reflect the will of the community. They are an attack on freedom. They should be scrapped and replaced with a universal voucher program.
2. PBPs: Public schools are OK as long as they churn out educated workers and don’t cost too much.
3. CDs: Public schools are a big part of the glue that holds our society together. Just make sure they don’t become too secular.
4. Reactionaries: Public schools are OK in concept, but left-wing bureaucrats and teachers are turning them into bastions of wokeness. They need to be brought back under community control. Get rid of CRT and all of those other acronyms that say bad things about white people in real America.

Hence, the GOP’s interest in radical public school “reform.”

Assad has won the war–after all, he’s still in power–but he’s lost the peace. He still doesn’t control large areas within Syria’s boundaries. The other Arab states may want to improve relations with him, but they won’t invest any money in his ruined country. Russia and Iran, his patrons, have plenty of other, more pressing problems to confront. What can he do to make his situation better?

Cut a deal with Turkey. He has more in common with Erdogan than either of them would like to admit. He should agree to tolerate Turkish incursions into his country and a forced return of refugees in exchange for some investment. Both parties would benefit from that kind of a deal.

It’s time to bring an old feature back! Here’s the clue:

A: Privately dismissive of Trump, he nonetheless backed him vigorously during his presidency, but he subsequently turned on him and supported DeSantis for the nomination in 2024.

Q: Who is Rupert Murdoch?

Jamelle Bouie argues that the purported “parents’ rights” agenda is really about imposing a reactionary heckler’s veto power over school boards, not identifying and enforcing community standards. Is he right?

Indeed, he is. I’ve previously argued that the values of the community go beyond those of the affected parents, as many of us who are required to support school districts do not have children in the system. In addition, if you truly believe in the sanctity of community standards, you should accept that urban school systems should reflect blue values. DeSantis, Youngkin, and other GOP state leaders associated with “parents’ rights” don’t agree; they think both local and federal sentiments are irrelevant, and all policy should be made at the state level. At least in red states.

Bouie goes on to say that the reactionary agenda is actually to destroy the public school systems throughout the country. I will address this argument, the fallacies behind “states’ rights,” and the impacts of school voucher programs in subsequent posts.

MBS and the Saudis are riding high. They have just signed an agreement with Iran that appears–at least in the short run–to eliminate any significant external threats to the kingdom, thereby eliminating the need for any dependence on America. The Ukraine War has made it clear to the rest of the world that Saudi petroleum will be needed for the foreseeable future. MBS has wiped out any meaningful domestic resistance to his reforms. Even climate change isn’t that big a deal; unlike, say, Iraq and Iran, the country can afford air conditioning. Life is good.

But, as I’ve noted before, the rulers who successfully dragged their nations, kicking and screaming, into the present are typically known as “The Great,” as in Peter the Great and Frederick the Great. Is MBS “the Great” or “the Mediocre?” If he’s the latter, and the record to date suggests he is, he should remember the example of the Shah of Iran. Big changes imposed by autocrats over the objections of conservative religious leaders lead to big backlashes when things don’t go well, and then what?

As I predicted, the uprising against the regime failed, because the Iranian leadership remained united and willing to use overwhelming force against it. No one can have any illusions about the legitimacy of the regime at this point, however. It doesn’t exist.

The regime will fall when the leadership ceases to be united against the aspirations of the people. That could happen when the Supreme Leader dies. The succession is likely to be contested, which could bring a meaningful opportunity for the public, at long last, to be heard.

Let’s hope so.