Cromwell

If you’re an optimist, or a Biden supporter, the killing of al-Zawahiri proves that it was unnecessary to keep American troops in Afghanistan, and that the administration’s decision to withdraw was correct. If you’re a pessimist, or a GOP voter, you probably think that the episode proves the Taliban will continue to harbor terrorists, and that an attack on American soil is inevitable as a result of the withdrawal.

Both arguments are plausible. The only way we will get a definitive answer is if the worst fears of the pessimists are shown by events to be correct. The Biden side has the obligation of proving a negative, which isn’t really possible; if there are no terrorist attacks for ten years, how do we know one isn’t just around the corner?

The election of Lincoln, logically speaking, did not require the Confederate states to secede. Nobody, including Lincoln, thought the federal government had the power to abolish slavery where it already existed. As to the territories, Lincoln didn’t have the votes in the Senate to eliminate slavery, the Dred Scott decision precluded him from doing so in any event, and slavery was not economically viable in many of the western states regardless of what the law said.

Secession was thus a rash and unnecessary decision; it was also the only way that slavery could, in the end, be abolished–as a matter of wartime expediency. That is, of course, exactly what happened.

If secession had never occurred, what then? My best guess is that slavery would have been abolished decades later, with compensation paid to the slaveowners; after all, that is what happened in the British Empire. Most of the freed slaves, with few resources of their own to call on and no help from a government that had paid a huge sum to free them, would have ended up as sharecroppers on plantations, with no meaningful political rights.

Does that story sound familiar?

After weeks of hard negotiations with innumerable twists and turns, Joe Manchin was finally persuaded to support a slimmed-down version of the BBB that would do a lot of good, particularly on climate change. It was wonderful news, but we don’t have a deal yet.

Sinema still stands in the way. Like Manchin, she enjoys being mysterious and unpredictable. Nobody knows how she will vote at this point.

Just as Schumer managed to get Manchin on side, Manchin needs to get her working on the same team. She is Manchin’s Manchin.

A group of moderates from both parties is trying to start a third party. Is that a good idea?

No, because it is based on a false premise: that both parties are controlled by extremists. That is only true of the GOP. The Democratic Party may have its share of noisy culture warriors, but it is run by moderates who respect the norms of liberal democracy and want to improve the lives of all Americans, including those in red states.

In other words, as I’ve said many times, saying that Donald Trump and the 20-year-old guy on Twitter are the same thing is false equivalence.

Bret Stephens is a bundle of contradictions. On domestic issues, he is a CL; he has never seen a tax he didn’t want to cut, or a regulation he didn’t want to repeal. Issues which lack any kind of plausible rugged individualist solution, such as climate change, simply don’t exist for him. On foreign affairs, on the other hand, Stephens is a super-hawk, willing to run any risk and pay any price to support American domination of the entire world. As a result, he advocates the following:

1. He thinks Biden needs to do whatever it takes to guarantee a quick victory for Ukraine over Russia. Given the Russians’ enormous advantages in manpower and equipment, that can only mean NATO airstrikes on Russian positions in Ukraine. In other words, he wants NATO to declare war on Russia, and risk nuclear war.
2. At the same time, he wants Biden to walk away from the Iran nuclear talks and put the fear of God in the Iranian leadership. That means threatening war, and presumably following through, if necessary, as we have no further economic levers at hand.
3. Finally, he wants to take a more aggressive stand with China over Taiwan, which could also lead to war.

Three wars at once! That’s rather a lot, don’t you think?

Paul Krugman is a huge fan of U.S. Grant. He gives Grant huge kudos for engaging in total war to defeat the Confederacy. It might not have been flashy, and it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, but in the end, it was effective. It was the right call.

Would it be ungracious to point out that Putin is using the same kind of tactics in Ukraine? Krugman doesn’t seem to be aware of that, but maybe he should be.

Nancy Pelosi refuses to say whether she intends to visit Taiwan. The Chinese, as you would expect, are growling. Would it be wise for her to send the message that America stands behind Taiwan?

No. We are long beyond the point of making symbolic gestures relative to Taiwan. What we need now is quiet diplomacy with our allies to defend Taiwan, not noisy gestures that piss off the Chinese without generating concrete results.

Forget any technical definitions. In the real world, a recession is a sharp drop in demand that results in a corresponding sharp rise in unemployment and a rapidly declining stock market. Is that where we are?

Obviously not. What we are experiencing now is the inflation correction that everyone wanted. The existence of so many unfilled positions and the increased savings rate from the pandemic and the relief bill will mitigate the impacts of tighter money on workers. We are not reliving the late 1970s, let alone 2008.

Lindsey Graham has come to Bedminster to discuss the upcoming campaign with the American Caligula. Trump, as usual, has left him waiting for an hour. Graham is finally escorted into the great room, where he finds Trump on a chair that looks suspiciously like a throne, with an attractive young woman dropping grapes into his mouth.

G: Mr. President!

T: Linseed! Good to see you! Are you here to talk about the campaign?

G: Of course! I can’t wait! And to deliver a message.

T: Oh, great. This is going to be good, I’m sure. Let me guess–it’s from Mitch and Kevin, right?

G: Yes.

T: And they want me to hold off on announcing my campaign, because they think it will hurt their candidates in the midterms.

G: That’s it.

T: And their reasoning is that they think the Democrat committee is damaging me politically, and all Republicans by implication.

G: Three for three.

T: Well, that’s exactly what I would expect them to say. And do you know why, Linseed?

G: Try me.

T: Because they’re RINOs, that’s why! They didn’t support my battle against the rigged election, and they still don’t! They think the system can be saved–that it’s good, even! They’re the problem, not the solution!

G: I’m not sure it’s fair to call them RINOs. They were Republicans before you were.

T: Of course, they’re RINOs, you dimwit! Anyone who opposes me, but claims to be a Republican, is a RINO by definition.

G: Why do you say that?

T: Because a real Republican knows the system is totally corrupt and needs to be burned down. What’s more, he knows that only I can do it. Give me absolute power, and I can deliver! Weaklings like Pence and DeSantis can’t say that.

G: It’s true. Mitch likes the system just the way it is. It gives him what he wants, and everyone else nothing. Not even the far left.

T: You believe in burning it down, don’t you, Linseed?

G: Of course, Mr. President.

T: Then let me hear you say it. BURN IT DOWN!

G: (Says it faintly)

T: I CAN’T HEAR YOU! SAY IT LOUDER!

G: Burn it down!

T: NOW MEAN IT THIS TIME! BURN IT DOWN!

G: BURN IT DOWN!

T: That’s my guy! Now, let’s go play golf. I’ll even give you a discount on your fees, and let you ride in my cart.

G: Oh, thank you, Mr. President! What an honor!

T: Just remember–you have no chance of winning. Winners win, by definition. I’m a winner. That’s how I know Biden couldn’t possibly beat me. You can’t, either.

G: Whatever you say, Mr. President.

(The two leave for the golf course).

The unemployment rate at the end of 2019 was 3.5 percent; today, it is 3.6 percent. The deficit for 2019 was slightly under $1 trillion; the projected deficit for 2022 is slightly over $1 trillion. The DJIA at the end of 2019 stood around 28,500; today, it is at 32,500. The Fed discount rate was 1.55 percent at the end of 2019; today, it is 2.5 percent.

In addition, the Trump tax cuts have not been repealed, the additional spending on social programs (with a few exceptions) in the pandemic relief bill have expired, and Trump’s tariffs are mostly still in place. In short, with one glaring exception, today’s economy is the GOP holy grail–the pre-pandemic Trump economy. The exception, of course, is inflation.

This proves two things. First, Biden’s policies can’t possibly be primarily responsible for the current level of inflation if they are effectively the same as Trump’s. This is, of course, confirmed by the data from the UK and the EU. Second, the GOP doesn’t have any plausible ideas for dealing with either inflation or slowing growth, since they are already getting what they want. All they really wanna do is have some fun bitching about the economy for opportunistic reasons.

Given its shape and location, the state of Florida is uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Since the Florida GOP can’t abide the thought of intervening in the economy to prevent or even mitigate climate change, however, state government has done nothing to address the mounting problems over the last decade. Rick Scott reportedly wouldn’t even permit the use of the term in state regulations.

Unfortunately, reality bites, even in Florida. The cost of property insurance is out of control, due to the increasing cost of tropical events fueled by rising temperatures, and is becoming a major campaign issue. Instead of trying to address the underlying problem, DeSantis and the legislature have decided to pour more taxpayer money into the state-owned insurance company of last resort, and to expand its obligations. Otherwise, the value of property in Florida would collapse, and with it, the economy.

Doesn’t this sound a lot like, well, socialism for the middle class? Whatever happened to the rugged individual in Florida? One hopes that the Democrats understand what an opening this is and exploit it during the campaign.

The current predominant winner-take-all approach to apportioning electoral votes isn’t mandated by the Constitution; in fact, it probably isn’t consistent with the views of the Founding Fathers. It is also a disaster for our political system. Under the current conditions, it means that the votes of the vast majority of Americans are meaningless, and that presidential elections are decided by a handful of voters in swing states. That in turn means presidential candidates have no incentive to campaign in places like California or Texas, and it puts enormous pressure on the counting process in states like Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It is a system in desperate need of reform.

The best way to do that is for all of the states to agree to apportion their electoral votes in accordance with proportions of the popular vote. A national referendum supporting that reform would be a good way to give all of the state governments the confidence to go ahead and make the change.

He was fabulously wealthy and famous, but it was never enough. He had a huge chip on his shoulder. He thought he didn’t get the respect he deserved (due largely to the fact that he was known for blowing the big one), and he hated the establishment for it. When given the opportunity, he took money from the Saudis and worked to set up a crass counter-establishment. Whether his efforts will be successful or not remains to be seen.

Is it Trump or Greg Norman? You decide. They’re effectively business partners with the LIV Tour today.

Guns move easily across state lines, so a patchwork of state regulations doesn’t really solve the problem; if we are to stop the use of assault weapons in mass shootings, we need a national sales ban. That is currently impossible, due to the filibuster. Could a national referendum help?

Yes. While it would be necessary to define “assault weapon,” which is a tricky task, the question itself would be relatively simple, and lends itself to a yes or no answer. That is ideal for a referendum.

The constitutionality of such a ban is currently an open question. It is possible, of course, that Clarence Thomas would flip the bird at the American people and tell them that their opinion doesn’t matter–he only cares about himself and Blackstone. That would require a level of arrogance that even Thomas might not be able to attain, however. It would be worth a try.

I don’t know the answer to that, of course, but there are three possibilities:

1. My initial plan was based on the assumption that Ukraine wouldn’t fight. It turned into a disaster. I have since gained enough ground to call the campaign a victory and avoid humiliation at home. Once my gains in the Donbas have been rounded off, I will lower the intensity of the war, look for a reasonable negotiated peace, rebuild my military, and wait for a better opportunity in the future–perhaps after Trump wins in 2024.
2. The current plan is working reasonably well. The combination of low-level conflict (which limits my casualties), the blockade, and gas cutoffs may force both Ukraine and NATO to make a deal that is highly favorable to me over the winter. It’s what I should have been doing all along. If that doesn’t work, we’ll revert back to #1.
3. I’m determined to take Ukraine, come hell or high water. There are no limits to what I will do, including the threat of nuclear war.

I think he has gone beyond #1. #2 is very plausible. God help us if it is #3.