Cromwell

How can America be persuaded to value Christianity when a majority of Americans are not Christian? That’s a question that Justice Alito asked his audience during a recent speech. He’s not the first reactionary to pose it.

As far as I can tell, there are four possible answers:

1. Give up trying to convince pagan America of anything, retreat into a safe space, and await a better day (the “Benedict Option”);
2. Make a serious effort to change public opinion through reasoned argument (what I have called the “Patrick Option”);
3. Use the legal system to carve out exceptions for Christians regardless of the state of public opinion (we’ll call this the “Alito Option); or
4. Use the political system and the military to impose your values on your opponents (a good name for this would be the “Franco Option”).

As the name suggests, Alito is working hard on the third alternative by creating a hierarchy of First Amendment rights, with the Free Exercise clause above all of the others. I doubt he sees that as anything more than an interim solution, however.

What’s the big deal about Trump keeping classified documents at his house? He was the president, wasn’t he? He was the source of all power and legitimacy within the state, and everything in it was his property! Winning the election meant he owned the government, and could do whatever he wanted with it, just as he could with the Trump Organization.

Monarchs in the early Middle Ages did not recognize any distinctions between their private interests and the state; they were entitled to dispose of their kingdoms as they saw fit, subject only to judgment from God. There is no reason to believe that Trump sees the presidency any differently.

DO IT AGAIN

In the morning, you go gunning

For the man who stole your office.

So you call on your militias

But they stop you at the White House.

Right-wing mourners are all singing

As they drag you from the seat of power

But the battle isn’t over

And you’re not a shrinking flower.

______________

You go back, Jack

Do it again.

Wheels turning ’round and ’round

Go back, Jack

Do it again.

__________________

Now you’re trying to assure us

That you’re not a losing man.

You say Washington’s for burning

And you’re working on a plan.

Public records are all private

So you hide them when you’re able.

In the land of Ron DeSantis

You must put them on the table.

_____________

You go back, Jack

Do it again.

Wheels turning ’round and ’round.

Go back, Jack

Do it again.

______________

Parody of “Do it again” by Steely Dan.

Reactionaries typically portray themselves as passionate supporters of the rule of law. They frequently fly “Blue Lives Matter” flags and put pro-police bumper stickers on their pickup trucks. Why, then, are they talking about defunding the FBI, and why was additional funding for the IRS unanimously opposed by the GOP?

Because reactionaries believe that the purpose of the state is to deliver sticks to their ideological enemies and carrots to themselves. Wealthy tax cheats, fraudsters and other white collar criminals, and insurrectionists are their friends, not their opponents. “Law and order,” as a result, is a concept that applies only to minorities–in particular, black people on the street fighting for equal rights.

Paul Krugman thinks the GOP’s refusal to take climate change seriously is based on culture war considerations, not economic self-interest. Is he right?

Yes, but not exactly for the reasons he states in his latest NYT column. The GOP is a reactionary party which values jobs that have traditionally been done by burly men. Fossil fuel industries clearly fit that bill; installing solar panels does not. In addition, the GOP believes passionately in the cult of self-reliance; increasing the size of government only screws things up and encourages dependency. Since there is no rugged individualist solution to climate change, the better approach is to deny that there is a problem, or, in the alternative, to deny that there is any plausible solution.

What is the “deep state?” It is all of the people who were hired at the federal level to provide expertise and to enforce the law equally and predictably. It includes the military, law enforcement, the judicial system, and bureaucrats of all kinds.

What Trump calls the “deep state” is a formidable barrier to the exercise of arbitrary power for the benefit of himself and his reactionary supporters and the detriment of everyone else. It relies on knowledge, precedent, and written law rather than the whims of a despot. It is the child of the Enlightenment, not the early Middle Ages. That’s why Trump hates it so much, and why his platform for 2024 will be to destroy it.

It would be fair to describe the McConnell Project as a highly diluted version of Orban’s illiberal democracy. It contains three pillars: a reactionary Supreme Court; gerrymandering; and the filibuster. Taken together, the three pillars do not prevent Democrats from winning elections on a national basis, but they do mean that the left has little ability to effectuate dramatic change at the federal level regardless of the state of public opinion. The Project is, therefore, fundamentally anti-democratic.

The Project has limits, however. It has little power over blue states. It cannot stop the left from raising taxes and increasing federal spending under any and all circumstances. It also leaves the media untouched, which is one of the central features of the Orban regime. That means the government cannot force the left to shut up, which is what reactionaries desire, above all.

The battle within the GOP is between the group of “moderates” that accepts the limits of the Project and a group of fairly similar size which rejects them, and wants to “burn it down.” Since the GOP cannot win elections without both groups, and the extremists appear to be ascendant, McConnell will probably have to choose between his version of the Constitution and reactionary autocracy in the reasonably near future. What will he do? I don’t know for sure, but his open willingness to support Trump in 2024, if the latter is nominated by the party, is pretty compelling evidence that he fears government by the left more than the destruction of American liberal democracy.

Both are obviously cynical, opportunistic GOP legislative leaders who typically put their party’s interests ahead of their country’s. That said, there are differences:

1. McConnell has a vision for the future, which has largely been realized, pending possible revolutionary change from both the right and left;
2. McConnell occasionally displays some symptoms of patriotism and bipartisanship;
3. McConnell believes in keeping the lights on in Washington; and
4. McConnell generally tells the truth and keeps his word.

McCarthy, on the other hand, has no apparent interest in anything except becoming Speaker. He sees maintaining party unity as the means by which that will happen. As a result, he accommodates the extremist members of his caucus to an extent that is dangerous to the country–not that he cares.

The war in Ukraine has devolved into something that looks like World War I: heavy casualties on both sides; the predominance of artillery and trench warfare; and mostly static lines. If the analogy holds, what does it tell us about the future?

It’s pretty scary. Neither side was willing to make a legitimate attempt to talk peace in 1916. 1917 and 1918 saw escalation in an effort to break the deadlock: unrestricted submarine warfare; the entrance of the US into the war; and the great German offensive of 1918. The Russian Empire collapsed, to be followed by the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires. You know the rest.

If Putin isn’t willing to call it a day and make a deal at some point of his choosing, he’s going to have to escalate. He could do that by mobilizing more troops, by using nuclear or chemical weapons, or by enlisting support from the Chinese. If he does, NATO will have to respond in kind. Things could get pretty hairy after that.

It’s March of 2023. The GOP has a slim majority in the House. President Biden sends a request for more military aid to Ukraine to Congress. A substantial majority of GOP House members supports the bill, but a smattering of Trumpists does not. As a result, Kevin McCarthy either has to rely on votes from Democrats to get the bill through, and thus alienate the extremists in his caucus, or watch the bill fail and see Putin swallow Ukraine.

What does he do? Any decent man in his position would put the national interest before his own. Can you really rely on a guy who lied about telling the truth, and who consistently panders to the crazoids in his party, to do that?

Steve Bannon was fond of saying that any day spent discussing identity politics was a win for the GOP. For the most part, he is right, because identity issues create wedges within the Democratic Party, but not the GOP.

The inverse to Bannon’s dictum is that any day in which Donald Trump commands the headlines is a win for the Democrats. Trump may be hugely popular with the red base, but the country as a whole disliked him even before the events of January 6. The more the man on golf cart is identified with the GOP, the worse it is for the party as a whole.

Chuck Schumer has come to the Oval Office for a victory lap.

B: Chuckles! You da man! Or should I say, you da Manchin whisperer!

S: I just did my job, Mr. President.

B: I remember in the old days, Barack used to call me the McConnell whisperer. I guess something like that is your job now.

S: Something like that. Joe’s easier to deal with than Mitch, even though he’s less predictable.

B: We’ve accomplished quite a lot in this term, don’t you think?

S: We didn’t make you the new FDR. That was probably never realistic, given our slim majorities, the Ukraine war, and inflation. But leaving that aside, I think our record is damn good. Particularly if you compare it to Trump’s. All he could do is cut taxes, and he barely got that done.

B: So where do we go now?

S: First, we need to start selling all these bills to the American public and pointing out the differences between us and the Republicans. Then, we have to do a decent job with the election.

B: Then what? Do we have a realistic agenda for the next two years?

S: Almost regardless of the outcome of the election, we’re playing defense the next two years. Barring some sort of a miracle, we’re not getting anything meaningful done until 2024.

B: Yeah, the next two years are going to be full of Republican malarkey. They’re going to be investigating my son out the wazoo. We’re probably going to have a debt ceiling crisis, too. The Trump base will demand one. They don’t care if we destroy the country’s credit or not. That’s part of burning it down.

S: What will you do if it happens?

B: I’m not going to give in to GOP blackmail, no matter what. We will continue to pay the nation’s bills whether Kevin and Mitch agree to it or not.

S: Good. In the meantime, let’s enjoy what we’ve accomplished. It was a long and winding road to get here.

B: And you were the driver. Thanks for everything. (Schumer leaves)

Kevin McCarthy is (or claims to be) outraged at the raid on Mar-a-Lago. He is telling Merrick Garland to clear his calendar to answer lots of questions from the expected GOP House majority in a few months.

I don’t know about you, but the prospect of Garland answering obnoxious questions from some doofus GOP committee chairman about Trump’s criminality on national TV fills me with joy, not fear.

Some genuinely pro-life pundits and politicians are supporting compromises on abortion legislation that wouldn’t find favor with the Catholic Church. Should they be accused of hypocrisy?

No, because there isn’t anything self-serving or dishonest about taking only what you can reasonably get in the real world–that’s called liberal democracy. Where I have a problem with anti-abortion activists is when they pretend to take a position that really isn’t what they want based on principles they don’t actually advocate (e.g., abortion should be regulated by the individual states) and when they advocate policies they know are practically impossible in order to prove their good faith and moderation (e.g., the GOP will expand the welfare state to protect the mothers of unwanted babies once abortion has been outlawed).

Donald Trump was an historically unpopular president. His antics with regard to the virus didn’t help much. Based on history and the polls, the GOP should have been destroyed in 2020. It didn’t happen; the GOP actually gained seats in the House. Biden’s poll numbers are similarly bad today; what, if anything, does that mean for 2022?

As in 2020, not as much as you might think. The blue base will be motivated to vote against the reds on culture war issues–particularly abortion. In spite of his troubles, Biden still polls ahead of Trump, whose association with the GOP hasn’t diminished a bit. The playing field for the Senate in 2022 is tilted towards the Democrats. Finally, increasing polarization creates a floor as well as a ceiling for both parties. It will be just as difficult to create a red wave as it was a blue one.