Cromwell

One possible outcome of the war in Ukraine is that the conflict just peters out, with no political settlement. That would look a lot like Korea. Who would lose the most under those circumstances?

It would be a disaster for Putin. He would have failed to accomplish any of his political objectives, he would have to continue to pay to keep his troops mobilized, sanctions on his economy would remain in place, Finland and Sweden would probably join NATO, and Europe would make more determined efforts to cut itself off from Russian oil and gas. Russia would become completely dependent on Chinese political, economic, and military assistance. All for a few worthless square miles of ground in the Donbas.

The bottom line here is that Putin needs a deal as soon as the situation on the ground would permit him to call himself a winner. Is he aware of that yet? He’s dumber than I thought if he isn’t.

Let’s address the two questions I left hanging, in order:

1. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WOULD MUSK BE ABLE TO RESIST THE CALLS FOR CENSORSHIP BY THE LEFT AND RIGHT? With the left, Musk would be a hostage to events; if an insurrection or mass murder or some other disaster that could be tied directly to Twitter occurred, the calls for reform would be very loud indeed. The right, on the other hand, is going to try to expand the government’s power to override the owners of the internet companies and impose censorship on the woke left. It hasn’t happened yet, but it will. That’s the regulatory frontier for reactionaries. You’re already seeing a version of it in authoritarian states.

The best possible censorship option is an open, transparent, and democratic system, but, given the lack of trust between the right and left in our society, relying on independent billionaires may be our best option at the moment. Let’s face it–wouldn’t you prefer Musk to DeSantis?

2. CAN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM WORK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERNET? Publishers and editors acted as gatekeepers during John Stuart Mill’s day. There were different gatekeepers in 20th century America, but they still existed. Musk’s vision of the internet doesn’t really include any, which pretty well guarantees that Twitter will turn into a cesspool of extremism and fraudsters.

As I noted in my last post, Musk clearly believes that the truth will prevail in an open and fair fight over the long run, and that lies and garbage will be driven out. That kind of optimism is quintessentially American, and is in our nation’s DNA; even I feel it on occasion. But our country has a short history, and has been fortunate to be separated from danger by two oceans. The experience of other nations, and our own during the Trump years, suggests to me that Musk’s optimism is misplaced. Lies and libels circulate too fast on the web to be contained without censorship, and the results can be catastrophic.

Ross Douthat argues that Elon Musk’s views are neither left-wing nor conservative; he is best understood as a man who believes in dynamic change, and thinks unfettered speech is necessary to get us there. Is Douthat right?

I would say yes. Musk strikes me as a typical techno bro libertarian who thinks that history is made by geniuses like him, who should therefore be freed of government regulation to the maximum extent possible. Or, to put it more generously, Musk is a classical liberal, who believes the truth will prevail and mankind will progress only if the marketplace of ideas is left wide open. Sure, there may be some backsliding at times, and some vulnerable people may get hurt in the process, but in the end, it will work out for the best.

Musk is clearly positioning himself as a man above party who can resist pressure to censor from both the right and the left due to his vast wealth and strength of character. That is a legitimate viewpoint, and admirable in its way. But is it realistic? Can one man, however rich and powerful, really fend off public opinion and the government by himself? And, given the unique qualities of social media, does the classical liberal position on free speech still work?

For my responses to these questions, tune in tomorrow.

For Democratic candidates, the virus is a bit like January 6; it depends on the quality of the GOP opposition. If the Republican candidate is a militant anti-vaxxer, that issue should be featured prominently in the campaign; whip up the anger of the pro-vax majority by accusing your opponent of depriving responsible citizens of their freedom and having blood on his hands. If he isn’t, then you’re probably better off letting it drop. There is no real advantage to bringing it up.

You probably knew that the Supreme Court was largely responsible for the failures of Reconstruction. But did you know that the justices involved were mostly nominated by Republican presidents during and after the Civil War? It’s true! How can that be?

Successful attorneys make lousy revolutionaries for two reasons. First of all, being relatively wealthy, they have a strong vested interest in the existing system. Second, and equally important, their livelihood is based on respect for decisions made by equally intelligent people in the past. Change is supposed to be slow and incremental. Revolution is not part of the equation.

Those are undoubtedly the reasons why the Supreme Court ultimately viewed the Civil War and Reconstruction as a brief and unfortunate blip in the nation’s history instead of a second founding of the republic. Everything was supposed to go back to normal, minus slavery. And that’s what happened for about a hundred years.

The Alito draft opinion in Dobbs is consistent with that line of reasoning. Alito wants to bring back America as it existed immediately prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. He doesn’t want to consider either the broad revolutionary vision that went into the amendment, or the critical changes to the system that occurred afterwards–votes for women, popular votes for the Senate, the Civil Rights Movement, the New Deal, and so on. That’s what makes him a reactionary, and why he has so much company in the judiciary.

(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.