Cromwell

With regard to Hamas, none. He had no influence or leverage over the terrorists. As I noted in a previous post, Bibi’s apparent lack of interest in freeing the hostages destroyed any leverage Hamas might have had; in fact, their continuing presence in Gaza was giving the Israelis an excuse to prolong the war. As a result, Hamas made the eminently rational decision to make the best deal possible and move on.

With regard to Bibi, some; he had more leverage with the Israelis than Biden did, and unlike Biden, he was willing to use it. The agreement, vague as it is, clearly contemplates a future for Gaza that doesn’t correspond to the fevered dreams of the extreme right-wingers in the Israeli cabinet. That represents an encouraging change in Israeli policy for which Trump is clearly responsible.

But Phase One is small potatoes. It is Phase Two that matters. Will Hamas really agree to disarm and relinquish control over the civilian population? Will Israel really agree to pull completely out of Gaza and end the fighting? Both of those events have to occur for this to be a real peace deal, and I have serious doubts about both.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, long shutdown blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

Trump’s become an autocrat, and now we’ve got to choose.

Will we stand up strong and fight, or are we bound to lose?

__________________

The public turned its back on us; we lost last year, it’s true.

We talked about democracy; they asked for something new.

Retribution’s now the thing; Trump’s crushing all that’s blue.

If we don’t stop him here and now, he’ll come for me and you.

______________

I’ve got the blues.

The post-election blues.

Some think we need new leadership

But I’ve sure paid my dues.

The country’s getting very dark;

It’s hard to see much light.

The center wanders aimlessly;

The left just wants to fight.

David French applauds a federal judge on the West Coast for using her eyes and refusing to accept the presumption of regularity as to Trump’s misuse of his emergency powers. He wants the Supreme Court to follow her example. Is he right?

He absolutely is. This is the single biggest issue the Court will confront in the next few years. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe, based on nearly a year of evidence, that the Court will continue to assume that Trump is operating in good faith when he argues that the sale of illegal drugs by foreigners is an “invasion” and that a handful of peaceful ICE opponents are engaged in an “insurrection.” If that happens, the door will be open for Trump to use the law to create an openly authoritarian state. Given the opportunity, do you doubt he will take it?

There are two theories for the source of ideas. The first one views them as a kind of manufactured product and the human brain, each with its own unique experiences and inherited traits, as a factory. The second is that ideas are revealed, not produced; their actual source is on the other side, and we are just channels. Which is correct?

There is no definitive answer to this question, of course, but AI will be incapable of receiving revelations, so it should give us some additional insight into the matter as it develops over the years. In the meantime, given my experience communicating with the other side, you can count me among the ancient Greeks (the Muses) and the many past and contemporary artists who have embraced the channeling theory.

There is a decent case for regime change in Venezuela. First of all, Maduro is a thug who has trashed democracy and impoverished his people. Second, and more importantly, there is an opposition with proven democratic support. As a result, there would be a reasonable chance of decapitating the regime with minimal bloodshed, installing the true winners of the last election, and then leaving. No nation-building required here.

There is no guarantee that the regime wouldn’t fight back, however. In addition, Trump has done nothing to prepare the American people for a sustained war except to engage in the Putinesque tactic of calling Maduro a drug dealer. Finally, you can be sure that Trump will demand compensation from the new government in the form of oil revenue concessions. The rest of the world will then see the American effort as old-fashioned imperialism and unite against us.

Would that be worth it? Trump doesn’t care about world opinion, so he would probably say yes. I do, so I would say no.

Mike Johnson knows three things about the expiring Obamacare subsidies. First, if the House had a free vote on extending them, it would pass. Second, refusing to hold that vote could cost the GOP the control of the House. And third, if he does permit the vote, the right wing of the party will be outraged, and he could lose his job.

In short, he doesn’t have any good options. For now, he is dealing with the problem by stalling and changing the subject; in his eyes, the issue is reopening the government and eliminating the blue team’s leverage, not soaring health care premiums. In the longer run, I suspect he will decide that the GOP has other ways to win the election–gerrymandering, crime, and a hypothetically improving economy–so the safer approach is to let the premiums rise and keep the Freedom Caucus happy.

Few issues are more potentially divisive for MAGA than China. One faction views China as an existential threat to American dominance and wants to divert resources from Europe to combat it; the other is interested only in the Western Hemisphere and is willing to concede a Chinese sphere of influence in Asia. To which camp does Trump belong?

Based on his performance to date, I would say the latter. He’s not consistent on this point, however, so only time will tell.

The “A” in MAGA is supposed to stand for America, not Argentina. And yet, Trump authorized a large IMF-style bailout for Argentina, thereby putting American taxpayers at risk, purely on the basis of ideological sympathy. How will MAGA respond?

Right now, I suspect very few members of the extreme right even know about this development; it is highly unlikely that Fox News said anything about it. If the bailout goes bad, however, I think there will be some serious complaining.

There is an emerging consensus that the struggling economy is being kept afloat by massive investments in AI. But plenty of history also tells us that initial investor enthusiasm for new technologies, whether it be railroads or the internet, usually results in a bubble. How does Trump react if it happens again?

Based on his response to the pandemic, in the worst possible way. First, he will resort to salesman talk and vehemently deny there is a problem. Next, he will try to cut off all sources of information to make the problem go away. Finally, he will lash out against his opponents. That’s when things will get really dangerous here.

In his inimitable way, Bibi made this agreement possible by consistently demonstrating to Hamas that obtaining freedom for the few remaining hostages was not an overriding priority. Hamas consequently recognized that the hostages provided little leverage and acted accordingly.

But Phase One, while welcome, is the easy part. Will Hamas actually agree to disarm and to let foreigners run what’s left of Gaza without interference? Will the extreme right-wingers agree to an end to the war without a commitment by Bibi to utterly annihilate the tiny remnant of Hamas and facilitate Israeli settlement in Gaza? We’ll see. I have my doubts.

Trump has made opposition to foreign wars and regime change the centerpiece of his foreign policy. It appears, however, that he is about to attack Venezuela to oust Maduro. Will MAGA follow him?

There will be some loud dissent, but for the most part, yes. Trump will argue that the foreign war rule doesn’t apply to land close to America’s borders and that he is replacing Maduro with a leader who actually won an election. He will also insist that keeping large numbers of troops in Venezuela will be unnecessary once Maduro is gone and that millions of Venezuelan refugees in America will be able to go home. I expect most of MAGA to accept these rationales.

MAGA often sounds like a Second Amendment absolutist group; after all, Charlie Kirk said quite clearly that dead school children were acceptable collateral damage. But is that an accurate view of MAGA’s position?

No. MAGA believes in rights for me, but not for thee. The Second Amendment is no different in that respect than the First. Trump is already thinking about depriving trans people of the right to bear arms and is boasting about illegal gun seizures in D.C. Expect more such efforts to control gun ownership in the future, particularly in cities in blue states.

And when it happens, the NRA may suffer some heartburn, but you can bet Clarence Thomas will say it’s OK.

It was always debatable whether a shutdown at this time was a good move for the Democrats. The record will show that I was slightly inclined to the no side. Having opted for a confrontation, however, the Democrats can’t afford to cave. Why?

Because Trump and the GOP are treating the crisis as a test of dominance rather than an opportunity to persuade swing voters. If the blue team gets rolled when it appears to have the public on its side, everyone will draw the conclusion that it cannot be trusted to provide meaningful opposition to Trump’s usurpations of power. That in turn will cause the left to go to the streets, which will lead to violence, further military actions in our cities, and the end of liberal democracy in America.

In short, the pain caused by a shutdown will be real, but the pain caused by caving will be much worse.

As I predicted long ago, Trump is starting to talk seriously about bailing out his loyal farmers. On its face, this would require action from Congress, which is currently shut down. The Democrats would therefore appear to have a new point of leverage in any discussions about ending the shutdown. Will it really work that way?

I suspect not, because Trump will illegally and unilaterally find a source of money–presumably his tariffs– to use for the bailout even if the shutdown continues. He will want the farmers to know that he alone is responsible for the bailout, which makes sense in a way, because it is his trade wars and deportations that created the problem in the first place.

The latest French government collapsed after less than a month. The French electorate is increasingly viewing Macron, not the rowdy and divided opposition, as the source of instability. What should he do?

France needs a new parliamentary election, and Macron needs to make a positive case to the French public that the center is the only reasonable option instead of allying himself with the left against the RN. If the RN wins, so be it. Better to have them run the country into ruin with adult supervision in foreign affairs today than to win the presidency tomorrow.