Cromwell

The Iranian dissidents appear to lack any kind of formal organization, which is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength in that the regime can’t decapitate the movement with a few arrests; it is a weakness because the movement doesn’t know how to get to Point B from Point A. Organization can do that for you. Just ask the Bolsheviks.

As I have noted previously, the regime will survive as long as it remains united. So far, it mostly has, but there are reports that a few cracks are showing. How can the movement exploit those cracks?

The most obvious opportunity to terminate the regime will come when the Supreme Leader dies. In the shorter run, it would probably take an act of extreme, stupid brutality on the part of the security forces that mobilizes all decent opinion against the regime. We’re not quite there yet.

One thing is for sure: the regime no longer has any legitimacy in the eyes of anyone but its leaders.

While most of the GOP commercials in North Carolina have focused on crime, a few of them have mentioned the need to secure our southern border. I heartily agree. We need to do far more to keep those reactionaries from South Carolina from overrunning the Old North State.

(rimshot)

Readers of this blog will know that I support some forms of affirmative action and oppose others. I would acknowledge, however, that a reasonable observer could say that, in 2022, the drawbacks of affirmative action exceed its benefits. It is Exhibit A in the reactionary argument that government is hostile to the values and interests of ”real Americans.” It is just too divisive.

But that is a judgment call for Congress, state and local governments, admissions officers, and the electorate to make, not the Supreme Court. There is nothing in the legislative history or the text of the Fourteenth Amendment or any of the Civil Rights Acts that justifies putting any particular time limit on affirmative action programs. To do so, then, is the worst kind of judicial activism. It is the height of arrogance.

Some people have the mistaken view that there is a rigid hierarchy of universities in this country; if that were so, we would need admissions systems that are purely meritocratic. Most observers, however, recognize that no such hierarchy exists, and that the educational experience is enhanced by creating a diverse student body. Do affirmative action programs in our universities actually accomplish that goal? Or, to reframe the question slightly, does admitting a black student from an affluent family create more diversity than admitting a working-class white student from a rural area?

It is a factual question about which I am ambivalent. On the one hand, I suspect that virtually all black students have had experiences that set them apart from the white world; on the other hand, it may be that a relatively privileged black student identifies more with his white peers than with less affluent blacks. I will leave that question to those who have experience dealing with it.

Which leads us to the second question: why should the Supreme Court have the right to overturn the decisions of elected officials and private parties as to the continuing necessity of affirmative action? What special knowledge does John Roberts have to make that call?

None whatsoever. It’s about ideology, not facts.

The really meaningful question is, what happens next? Trump will be watching with great interest.

Given Musk’s new vision for it, he really should change the name to Sewer.

Elon Musk, a self-styled free speech absolutist, took control of Twitter a few days ago. In a completely related development, Nancy Pelosi’s husband was beaten with a hammer by a deranged right-wing intruder on Friday. What do these developments have in common?

If Musk goes ahead with his plan to turn Twitter into a reactionary sewer, episodes like this one will happen more frequently. He won’t just have to deal with fleeing advertisers; he’ll have blood on his hands.

Is Musk so rich and arrogant that he can blow that off? We’ll see.

Brazil isn’t America, of course; it is important in its own right, and it has its own unique institutions. But if Bolsonaro manages to cling to power through the use of armed gangs, do you think Trump won’t notice?

A coup of any sort in Brazil will make one in America that much more likely. Keep your eyes on Bolsonaro for the next several days.

The GOP House majority will be desperate to cut spending in order to rebuke Biden and send a message to the public about big government and inflation. With entitlements off the table, and plans to increase spending on border controls and defense, what’s left?

Here is my guess:

1. Clean energy subsidies: You can take that one to the bank. Real Americans love fossil fuels.
2. IRS agents: This cut will actually increase the deficit, but the GOP cares far more about the ”freedom” to cheat the IRS than about deficits.
3. Obamacare subsidies: They are at risk as long as GOP voters view them as a form of welfare, even if the shell of the program appears to be safe for now.
4. Money for Ukraine: McCarthy will do what it takes to keep his extremists happy.

It’s not a very impressive list, but it’s not a very impressive party.

Obamacare is the dog that hasn’t barked during this campaign. I haven’t seen a single commercial about it. The midterms are all about crime, abortion, and inflation.

I assume that means the GOP has finally learned that talking about taking health care away from middle-class people is not a winning issue. But the base has always viewed Obamacare as a welfare program for poor minorities, not an entitlement program for white Christians. Has that changed, or will we see Obamacare at the top of the list for cuts when the GOP takes control of the House?

I’m guessing health care cuts will be very much on the table, but we’ll see.

If you watch TV even casually, you will have noticed that a concerted effort to portray gays and minorities in a more favorable light has been made over the last few years, most notably since the George Floyd episode. This is all to the good, and works with most people. Elderly white people, however, grew up with a vision of black people as being lazy parasites at best; more likely, they were violent criminals coming for you and your property. These attitudes cannot be changed by a few commercials, and are political dynamite.

So when you see an avalanche of GOP commercials about crime, even in areas that are extremely safe, remember what the message really is: only the Republicans can keep these people—animals, actually—under control.

CLs hate Social Security and Medicare because they’re big government programs that infringe upon the freedom of the elderly to be sick and destitute. PBPs at best view entitlement programs as a necessary evil, because they are funded by taxes. As a result, there will always be some support for entitlement cuts within the GOP.

Reactionaries, however, view SS and Medicare as a lifeline for elderly white Christian voters—their kind of people. And so, as long as the Reactionaries remain in charge, talk about entitlement cuts will be just idle chatter.

Of course, the possibility exists that entitlement cuts could be used as leverage to cut spending for poor minorities. That, in the eyes of Reactionaries, would be a win-win.

The first one was the ”shining city on the hill” for religious dissenters. Next, it was the creation of an independent republic. This was followed by manifest destiny, and the growth of America as a world economic power. Then, America sought to make the world safe for democracy. It saved the world from fascism and communism, went to the moon, and tried to build a genuine multi-racial democracy. Finally, it attempted to use force to bring the blessings of democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. That didn’t turn out too well.

The worldwide democracy project having failed with a thud, what project can we pursue that would unite the country, overcome our current divisions, and do everyone some good? The logical candidates are the decarbonization of our economy, the creation of the long-promised perfect union, and successful opposition to China’s ambitions to upset the current world order. The problem is that the right objects to the first two, and even a struggle with China will damage the interests of consumers and some businesses. As a result, it is not clear that any such unifying project can be found.

As I anticipated, Florida has bent the rules significantly to facilitate voting in the hurricane-damaged areas of the state. You don’t even have to vote in your own precinct! These measures were absolutely necessary, and I commend the state for agreeing to them. But, of course, they are the product of a double standard. They prove that, for the GOP, “fraud” only occurs in large cities, which by definition are filled with minorities and Democrats–usually the same people. Areas dominated by right-leaning white Christians, by definition, are not susceptible to “fraud,” so the usual rules are unnecessary.

If a hurricane ever hits the blue areas of Florida right before an election, don’t expect the same official response. It will be all about “fraud,” not democracy.

Five years ago, I did a post in which I mused about the impacts of a hypothetical Mitt Romney victory over Obama in 2012. There would have been some short-term pain, to be sure, but that had to be balanced against having Romney as president instead of Trump between 2017 and 2020. At the time, it was a fairly close question for me. What about today?

Today, there can be no doubt; the nation would have been far better off with Romney as president through 2020. The GOP would have remained sane. The reactionaries would have been under control. There would have been no January 6, no threats of authoritarian rule, and no columns about the imminent death of liberal democracy in America.

You would take that in a minute, wouldn’t you?