Cromwell

(Jake Sullivan has returned to the Oval Office to talk about Ukraine. Biden is waiting for him.)

B: I suppose you’re here to talk about Ukraine again.

S: I’m afraid so.

B: Did you know that the Republicans are beating me up for being soft on Putin? The same Republicans who thought it was OK for Trump to withhold weapons from Ukraine and blackmail their president? What a load of malarkey!

S: You’ll get no argument from me, sir. Unfortunately, it’s where our political system is today.

B: So, is there anything else we could be doing to improve the situation in Ukraine?

S: I don’t think so. The problem is that we’re in a completely reactive position. All we can do is deny Putin what he wants. Anything more puts us in danger of starting a nuclear war.

B: Is there any possibility of overthrowing Putin?

S: Not without launching an attack on the Russian homeland itself, which is way too risky. Putin has complete control of the security apparatus, and he isn’t losing big enough to forfeit the support of the military. It’s not going to happen.

B: Can we at least get enough resources to the Ukrainians to push the Russians back over the border?

S: It’s not completely impossible, but it’s unlikely. The Russian manpower advantage is just too great.

B: So all we can do is make the Russians pay the price for their aggression?

S: That’s about it. Putin wants leverage with the Ukrainian government. We can deny him that leverage by preventing large losses of territory and by inflicting so much damage on his military that he can’t think seriously about doing this again in the foreseeable future.

B: The Republicans will complain if we don’t push the Russians out completely. They’re going to demand a World War II style ending with no casualties.

S: That’s the joy of not being responsible for avoiding a nuclear war. You’re going to have to prepare the American people for an outcome that doesn’t involve us planting the flag in Moscow.

B: Yeah, I guess that’s my job. I suppose I should start working on it ASAP. Thanks for the great news. (Sullivan leaves)

Pat McCrory, the supposed “moderate” GOP candidate in the NC Senate primary, is running a commercial in which he accuses Ted Budd (the Trumpist candidate) of being financed by George Soros.

I am not making that up. It just goes to show that the candidates believe the swing voters are on the crazoid wing of the party. It’s pathetic.

If you’re Tim Ryan, J.D. Vance has given you a big opening on Ukraine, so you need to make it front and center in your campaign. Most GOP candidates, however, will be running furiously against Putin and calling Biden a wimp. What is your answer?

There are two parts to it. First, emphasize your undying support for Ukraine, and your consistent votes for military aid, assuming that you are an incumbent. Do whatever it takes to establish that you are just as tough on Putin as your opponent. Second, to the extent possible, remind the voters that the GOP stood steadfastly behind Trump when he blackmailed the Ukrainian government and withheld weapons. Your audience may not pay much attention to that issue, but it’s worth a try.

We are, at last, starting to see some right-wing chatter about how it is essential to expand the welfare state to address the needs of the women who will now be required to give birth against their will. This is a quintessentially CD position. The CDs collapsed as a result of George W. Bush’s failures; can the abortion issue bring them back?

Don’t hold your breath. The GOP, as a whole, is animated by anger and fear, not love. It is pro-misery for its opponents, not pro-life. Donald Trump is its avatar, and owning the libs is its calling card. I can’t think of anything that would change that in the foreseeable future.

The average Republican candidate will be adamantly anti-abortion. He will also insist either that we can’t afford to expand the welfare state to address the needs of the millions of newly unwanted children in red states, or that doing so will simply encourage women to lounge in the hammock of dependency. Does this inconsistency present any opportunities for the Democrats?

Absolutely! The left needs to make it clear that the right is pro-misery, not pro-life. The GOP position, in a nutshell, is that a fertilized egg is a ward of the state, to be protected regardless of the impacts on women, but that a baby, once born, should instantly become a rugged individual and wean himself off taxpayer support. That has to sound ridiculous to any fair-minded voter, because it is.

If you just watch newsreel footage, the German advance into Austria looks like a parade. According to a book I am currently reading, however, the Wehrmacht was so poorly prepared for the invasion that a full one-sixth of German tanks broke down on the way to Vienna even without any opposition, and the Germans were forced to buy gas from private Austrian gas stations.

Does this sound familiar? Putin probably viewed his invasion of Ukraine in a similar vein. Unfortunately for him, his optimistic assumptions about Ukrainian public opinion were completely incorrect, and his lousy preparation has cost him bigly.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

How should Democratic candidates deal with January 6? It depends on the words and actions of the opposing candidate.

If the Republican clearly and openly expresses disdain for the rioters, there is no point in raising the issue. If he embraces the rioters, the issue should be front and center in the campaign, because liberal democracy itself will be on trial in the election. If, as in most cases, he equivocates in an effort to maintain party unity, he should be pushed hard until he makes a reasonably clear statement one way or another. That can be used against him with either the Reactionaries or the PBPs.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with the third group is to say that the public is entitled to believe the candidate supports the rioters unless he says otherwise. Or, in other words, silence means consent.

About ten days ago, I finished reading a new book about the financing of the Civil War entitled “Ways and Means.” I recommend it highly, because it is written in a very conversational style, but it provides a lot of useful technical information about the war that you don’t get in books that only talk about the military campaigns.

This isn’t a book review, however. The book also discusses at one point how a few Confederate bigwigs threw out the option of freeing the slaves in exchange for military service in order to deal with the Union’s massive manpower advantage, and how the suggestion was roundly rejected. I was dimly aware of that, but it occurred to me on this occasion that it presents the definitive answer to the question of the South’s war aims.

So, the next time some pro-Confederate reactionary tells you the war was about anything other than slavery, ask him why the Confederacy didn’t emancipate the slaves as a war measure in order to preserve its independence. That should be a lot of fun.

We know the GOP will put inflation front and center in their list of complaints about the Democrats during the general election campaign. What can the Democrats do to fight back?

Ask the right questions in public. The bottom line is that the Republicans have no plan for dealing with inflation other than to cut spending on safety net programs (and, in all likelihood, taxes for business). That obviously won’t help lower prices. If, as seems likely, the GOP candidates argue that the 2020 pandemic legislation was too generous to workers and should not have included the stimulus, it is fair to ask the voters if they would be willing to give the money back in exchange for slightly lower inflation. It is also appropriate to inquire as to what level of unemployment the GOP candidate thinks would be acceptable to reduce inflation back to 2 percent, and to point out that Trump supported stimulus checks during his campaign.

The point here is that the Democrats will lose big on this issue if they just run on the results of their own program and whine about supply chain problems. Showing the emptiness of the opposition agenda is essential.

In some related news, the Taliban have ordered all women to cover up from head to toe. If they don’t comply, the men in their family will be held responsible. That’s only fair, since it’s not as if women were full-fledged human beings.

At least the women aren’t being ordered to wear black burqas to make themselves look thinner. The Taliban already have that under control.

If you were wondering what to get your mother for Mother’sDay, the GOP has just the answer for you—an unplanned and unwanted baby! What could be a better tribute to Mom than that?

And you thought she would settle for candy and flowers.

We’re back in Boomerville! It’s 30 degrees cooler here. Some of the trees don’t have leaves yet, but the grass is green, the apple trees are in bloom, and the dogwood are spectacular.

It’s good to be home, and 500 miles from Ron DeSantis.

I’ve never interviewed Emmanuel Macron, and I probably never will. If I did, however, it would go something like this:

(I enter Macron’s office in the Elysee Palace, where he is waiting for me)

C: Before I start, M. Le President, I have to say, this is a gorgeous office. Particularly that desk there . . .

M: Ne le touchez pas! That desk was old when the Sun King was alive!

C: Actually, that’s a good segue to my first question. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, how’s that Jupiterian thing working out for you?

M: Well, I won the election, didn’t I?

C: True. But do you attribute that to your winning personality or to your record and the weakness of your opponent?

M: Mostly the latter. The French people want someone who can solve their problems, not someone who just screams about them.

C: It seems to me that the French people always want something different than what they have.

M: There’s some truth to that, but the French are not unique in that respect. America went from Obama to Trump, after all.

C: There is a lot of international concern about the political health of France even though you won fairly comfortably. After all, Le Pen got 41 percent of the vote. Do you think the concern is justified?

M: In part. It is possible that this is the high water mark for populism in France. We just don’t know at this point.

C: I have a theory that political systems are unstable when they lack responsible, well-defined parties on both the center-right and the center-left. Do you agree with that?

M: I think there is some validity to it.

C: Don’t you think that is a perfect description of where France is today? You occupy the entire center. That means anyone who is dissatisfied has to gravitate to the extremes.

M: Am I concerned about that? Yes. It would be much better if we had a plausible, responsible opposition.

C: What are you going to do about it?

M: That’s really an issue for the other political parties–not for me. My job is to deliver the goods for the public, not to figure out what the opposition should do.

C: What does Ukraine mean for your idea of European sovereignty? After all, America has been leading the way in the battle against Russia.

M: In the end, Russia is Europe’s problem. It always has been. We can’t just stop talking to them. We need a better way to resolve problems than war. That’s what European history was all about between 1945 and today.

C: What do you think ultimately happens with Ukraine?

M: We’ll have a deal that nobody likes. Russia will lick its wounds for a few years. We have to make sure they don’t try it again after that.

C: How do you do that?

M: By creating some new security machinery that provides the Russians with both carrots and sticks.

C: Will the Germans go along with that?

M: Good question. I’m working on that.

C: Merci for your time. (I leave)

The prevailing narrative after the Vance victory is that Trump still maintains his control over the GOP. The reality is more nuanced than that.

Vance won a clear plurality, but nothing like a majority, when faced with opposition you can clearly identify with the PBP and CL factions of the GOP. As a result, his victory looks a lot like Trump’s victories in the 2016 primaries, when he rarely received a majority of the votes.

The problem, of course, is that the Reactionaries are using their plurality to dominate the GOP, and the more moderate, principled groups are doing nothing to stop them. In that sense, it doesn’t matter whether Trump has the support of the entire GOP or not.

We know that Alito’s draft may change before the final opinion is issued. What makes this situation unique is our ability to compare the draft with the opinion, and to speculate as to the reasons for any changes.

I don’t expect to see many meaningful differences. What you should be looking for is any revisions to the language which emphatically distinguishes abortion from other culture war legal issues in spite of a mode of analysis that potentially encompasses far more than abortion. It would be extremely embarrassing for the majority to accept the current language and then find a few years later, for example, that same-sex marriage is a recently invented, bogus right that didn’t exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

If the distinction language is watered down, and you’re gay, be very afraid, because the Court is coming after you.