Cromwell

Assume, for purposes of argument, that a combination of right-wing militias, Red Guards, and regular federal troops is operating openly in blue state cities to suppress voter turnout next November. It would be a nightmare, but it isn’t hard to imagine at this point. How can the Democrats fight back?

All the suppression in the world won’t work if the states permit voting by mail. That may be one of the reasons Trump hates it so much.

The Democrats will run as one against Trump and the current state of the country in 2026; that much is clear. But what will the GOP message be? How will the party that controls the government deal with a status quo that most people dislike?

Here is the playbook:

1. While Trump never puts it in these terms, lots of GOP pundits view his economic program as short-term pain for long-term gain. They will be praying that the long-term gain starts showing up in 2026.
2. Crime, crime, all the time.
3. We hate trans people and illegal immigrants. Democrats love them and hate you.
4. God, I hope those gerrymanders work as promised.

Does that sound very inspiring to you, particularly if the economy sags?

The “No Kings” demonstrations attracted millions and got under Trump’s skin. That makes them a success. Why did they work so well?

For two reasons. First of all, they were characterized by an atmosphere of fun and frivolity that, to any fair observer, rebutted Trump’s argument that the demonstrators hated America. Second, the slogan is clear and encompasses virtually all of the shortcomings of the administration. Capricious one-man rule doesn’t just threaten your civil liberties; it also generates bad economic policy.

If you’re a fundamentalist Christian, you believe that people and animals are two completely separate categories. People have souls and animals don’t. Of course, in order to believe that, you have to ignore a boatload of empirical evidence about biology and evolution, which is why most of us aren’t fundamentalist Christians.

If you’re a materialist, on the other hand, you think both humans and animals suffer the same fate–permanent extinction–at death. It is a theory that appears to fit the facts as we know them. However, as I noted in a previous post, it requires you to believe that ideas are created by matter in motion; in other words, concepts like justice have no existence independent of the world in which we live. In addition, it flies in the face of the personal experiences described in previous posts. As a result, in spite of its intellectual attractions, I do not accept it.

That leaves me with the animal problem: do they pass on to the other side? Does every living creature, however humble in its attributes, go to the other side? Does it mean all living things are reincarnated? Or is there some line between the animals that go to the other side and those that don’t?

My insight into this question is more limited than I would like to admit. All I can say for sure is that one of my dogs appeared to me from the other side, so if there is a line, he was on the human side of it. I suspect there is a line between most animals and, say, insects and snakes. I just don’t know exactly where it is.

With that, I have reached the end of my Metaphysical Monday posts. They are intended to be read together and in order, starting with the one on authority from late July. If any of them are helpful to someone out there, they will be a success.

Inequality was soaring. There were huge battles over immigration. Populists were starting to play a larger role in the political arena. A crackdown on abortion had begun. Tariffs, interest rates, and the regulation of business were big economic issues. The Supreme Court turned to the right. Globalization and technological changes were remaking the face of the country, for good and for ill.

Is it the late 19th century or 2025? It’s both.

J.D. blew off public criticism of the racist texts. What conclusions should we draw from that?

Like his boss, J.D. sees the extreme right as an indispensable ally in the battle against the left no matter how appalling its language and behavior it might be. After all, you can count on them when things get tough–just look at the militias on January 6.

The GOP wants to avoid a divisive vote on extending the extra Obamacare subsidies and to prove to the world that the Democrats are a weak party with no leverage in the legislative process. The Democrats want to show that they are willing to fight for average Americans and, if possible, to win; at a minimum, they also want to raise the public’s consciousness about health care and identify the Republicans as the villains in the piece.

In the end, both parties are likely to get most of what they want. The public is going to be angry when the impact of the lost subsidies becomes clear. The GOP will continue to insist that nothing can be done until the government reopens; the Democrats, with no good options, will accept vague promises of compromise; and the GOP will be forced to tear itself apart talking about the issue, probably without delivering anything meaningful to the public.

As I’ve noted before, I’m technically a Boomer, but I don’t identify with them. To me, a Boomer is someone who participated in the great causes of the 1960s. I grew up with Watergate, inflation, and the Iran hostage crisis. It’s not the same thing at all.

Nevertheless, when I watched an NYT video featuring young people complaining about Boomers, it pissed me off so much I had to turn it off. It’s not that they don’t have some legitimate grievances; it’s that they misidentified the villains, to the extent there are any.

I will start by noting that Boomers did not elect Trump last year; Gen X did. The numbers don’t lie. As to the other complaints:

1. HOUSING COSTS: The speakers on the video argue that Boomers are NIMBYs. I have extensive experience in this field, and I can tell you that no generational cohort has any monopoly on NIMBY behavior. The problem is with a system that seeks to create public goods purely at the expense of existing homeowners, whether they be Boomers, Gen X, or Millenials.
2. COSTS OF EDUCATION: Yes, the paper cost of going to an elite private school has skyrocketed. This is due to a business model that also emphasizes massive aid to deserving poor students. Boomers probably didn’t invent the business model, and it certainly doesn’t benefit them in any way.
3. WELFARE STATE: There have been no massive increases in the size of the welfare state relative to the elderly during my lifetime. Yes, we suck up an increasing percentage of GDP due to our large numbers, but we paid for it in the form of tax increases and deferred retirement ages in bipartisan legislation passed during the Reagan years. There have been no tax increases to fund the system imposed on subsequent generations since that time of which I am aware.
4. HEALTH CARE COSTS: They have also skyrocketed, but that helps private companies and investors, not Boomer consumers.

It is fair, I think, to blame us as a group for responding selfishly to climate change. We also failed to grasp the significance of technological change and globalization, but it was the right, not all of our generation, that prevented the federal government from compensating the victims of those economic forces. Finally, some of us resisted tax increases to fund the welfare state, but some of us didn’t, and in any event, objections to higher taxes are not limited to my generation. If Gen Z wants to expand the welfare state for its benefit, it will have to agree to pay for it.

We’ve seen this movie before. Trump is sounding more hawkish on Ukraine than usual, so Putin will meet with him privately, flatter him, and make empty promises he has no intention of keeping. Trump will then change his tune, the war will go on, and nothing will change.

The only hope of bringing home a reasonable peace is to convince Putin that America’s support of Ukraine will never waver. With Trump in charge, how will that ever happen?

There is no exit ramp on the issue of impoundment, because Trump will never agree to it, and he has control of the facts on the ground. The only possible resolution of the issue will come through litigation. That is why impoundment is not the centerpiece of the blue team’s demands in spite of its extreme constitutional significance.

As to the Biden Obamacare subsidies, we have not yet heard the roar of anger in response to massive increases in insurance premiums because most Americans are not aware of them yet. That will change in a few weeks. If the public response doesn’t force the GOP into a meaningful compromise at that point, the only possible end to the shutdown will be a deal that saves the face of the Democrats, but nothing more.

PER CURIAM. The Court has examined the record in this case, which indicates unequivocally that the facilities provided to white and black students were not even remotely “equal” within the meaning of our previous precedents. If we were to decide this case based on the facts, therefore, there is no doubt that the school board would lose.

But that is not our method or our task. We are originalists. Our job is to determine the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment based on the totality of the information that we can dig up from books, newspapers, periodicals, public records, and the like. All of that information leads us to the same conclusion–America was an overwhelmingly racist nation in the middle of the 19th century, just as it was in 1787. Even most of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were racists, to say nothing of the attitudes of the general public.

We are compelled to conclude, therefore, that the Fourteenth Amendment is only intended to provide paper equality for white and black people, so the facts in the record simply do not matter in this case. It may be, as the dissent argues, that this decision is patently unjust and ignores the events of the last few centuries, including, but not limited to, the world’s response to the actions of the Third Reich. But that is irrelevant. The Constitution is not intended to be a living document; it must be read solely in relation to the attitudes prevailing at the time it was written, and any wisdom gained from experience subsequent to that event simply does not matter.

(Inspired by Ross Douthat’s interview with Amy Coney Barrett in today’s NYT)

The markets aren’t just Pollyannaish about AI; investors are assuming that Trump and Bessent can implement their counterrevolutionary economic plan without any severe short-term damage arising from a rupture with China. But what if they’re wrong? What if, for example, Xi needs to swagger as much as Trump does?

There is just so much that can go wrong here, starting, of course, with Trump’s capricious decision-making process. My investments are telling me that life is good, but I can’t see how it can last, and a lot of people are going to get hurt.

Life in the time of Trump.

The Phase One deal is done.

It’s good news for civilians;

Less for guys with guns.

Will it be a proper peace

Or just a brief cease-fire?

Gazans hope the former, for

Their suffering is dire.

There is nothing in the text or the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act which suggests the legislation was intended to self-destruct within a specified number of years. In addition, there are no logical or empirical standards independent of the Act that can be used by the judiciary to determine when it should expire.

And yet, a day after it was revealed that several prominent Young Republicans had used egregious racial slurs in group texts, it appears that the Court is prepared to invalidate Section 2 of the Act based on its perception–based on, if anything, a number pulled out of the air by Justice O’Connor decades ago–that America is now a completely colorblind country with no further need to protect racial minorities. Isn’t that special?

Apparently in response to some new initiatives from Trump, China has escalated the trade war by imposing increased port fees and making rare earth exports more difficult. Trump initially responded by lashing out and threatening huge new tariffs on November 1. He subsequently suggested that Xi was just having a bad day and that the new tariffs might not happen. J.D., in the meantime, tried to assure the public that Trump would ultimately win the trade war, as he has more cards than Xi. What should we make of this?

Under the present circumstances, Trump does not, in fact, hold the cards, which is why his behavior towards China has been so erratic. That is due largely to the fact that he has obligations to the voters, a problem not shared by the CCP. He could flip the script by giving a Churchillian speech demanding years of painful sacrifices from Americans, but the likelihood of him imposing major hardships on his base as well as blue America is extremely low. Instead, he will probably wind up making a geopolitical deal which gives some short-term economic benefits to America and a secure Asian sphere of influence to China.