Cromwell

We know from bitter experience that Donald Trump has no vision for improving the lives of the American people. Policy simply doesn’t interest him. The only plausible rationales for a Trump candidacy in 2024 are to avenge his defeat and finish destroying liberal democracy in America. And that is precisely what he will do if he is elected.

Given Trump’s obsession with the supposedly rigged 2020 election, the outcome of a rematch with Biden will either be an undisputed Trump victory or a constitutional crisis. But what if he doesn’t run? Is a constitutional crisis inevitable if, say, DeSantis is the GOP nominee?

It is a given at this point that the GOP nominee in 2024, regardless of who it is, will be a ferocious reactionary. That, in and of itself, does not dictate that 2024 will end in blood; it will depend on the attitude of the individual. The thing to worry about here is that Trump has already created the road map for overturning the election results. It is possible that the process will work more or less on autopilot at the state level regardless of the behavior of the nominee.

The Constitution was not written during one of our nation’s spasms of religious fervor, and most of the Founding Fathers were nominal Christians at best. Nevertheless, it was an era in which Christianity was taken seriously, and disputes between religious groups were a matter of considerable public importance. The large number of sects in this country made it completely impracticable to create a state religion. Hence, the Establishment Clause.

For over two centuries, it was assumed that the best way to avoid taking sides in religious disputes was to keep the government out of the religion business altogether. Establishment Clause jurisprudence reflects that assumption. Today’s Supreme Court pretty clearly does not accept that premise, however. Why not?

The Supreme Court appears to view the fundamental disagreement on religion in contemporary society as one between secular humanism on one hand and all types of religion on the other, not one between religious sects. I think you are going to see the Court increasingly making the argument that funding religious sects is acceptable because the alternative is making secular humanism (whatever that means) a kind of established religion. In other words, times and thought patterns have changed, so the interpretation of the Establishment Clause has to change, too.

The irony, of course, is that originalists absolutely reject this ahistorical approach when it works to the benefit of the cultural left. For the reactionaries on the Court, however, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

What do the two groups have in common? It isn’t just that they reject science, or that they accept the opinions of fellow internet morons over those of actual experts. No, the most important similarity is that they are supremely indifferent to the welfare of everyone around them. It’s all about them and their supposed rights; anything that happens to you and me, or even their own children, is acceptable collateral damage.

That makes them perfect Republicans, of course.

Texas prides itself on being the antithesis of California. It is using its lower housing costs to try to lure businesses and residents away from California, and having some success.

But Texas is not that far away from being a purple state. What happens if all of those blue state immigrants tip the scales and take the state out of the red category?

Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

Two Polish commentators argue in the NYT that the current regime resembles the intolerant right-wing authoritarian government that existed between 1925 and 1939. Are they right?

Yes, but the important thing to remember here is that the circumstances are far different. World War I brought all three of the powers that partitioned Poland to their knees, and the Poles defeated the Red Army before Warsaw in 1920; as a result, it was reasonable at the time to think that Poland could defend itself without much assistance. Today’s Polish government has no chance of protecting its borders from the Russians; it has to rely on its EU partners and NATO to keep it completely sovereign.

In short, the likelihood that the EU countries will agree to continue protecting Poland, while the latter ignores EU directives and hurls abuse at Brussels, is not great. The current regime, unlike the interwar version, is a beggar; it cannot be a chooser in the long run.

Here are the biggest issues we’ll face this year, with my predictions in parentheses:

1. Will the virus finally become endemic, like the flu, so we can get on with our lives? (Herd immunity is now a distant dream, due to the anti-vaxxers and our inability to vaccinate the rest of the world. We will, however, reach endemic status late in the year, although there won’t be a single dramatic point when that is realized.)
2. Will any of our outstanding foreign policy crises lead to war? (Russia does not invade Ukraine, and China does not attack Taiwan. Israel launches an air assault on Iran, with some material assistance from us. A threat of massive American retaliation limits the war to the Middle East.)
3. Will Biden and the Fed bring inflation under control without causing a recession? (The combination of tough talk, limited action, and improvements to the supply chain reduces the inflation rate significantly by Election Day without crushing the economy or the markets.)
4. Will the Democrats be wiped out in the election? (Intense polarization, improving conditions, and an electoral map that is more favorable in 2022 than most people think limit the blue team’s losses. The Senate stays status quo; the narrow Democratic majority in the House becomes a narrow GOP majority. Kevin McCarthy now has a big job on his hands.)
5. Will Trump announce he’s running for president after the election? (No. He won’t make his decision until 2023.)
6. Will some form of the BBB get through Congress? (A much smaller and more focused version of the bill passes. Progressives finally understand that most of their plans are pipe dreams and grab what they can get.)

As you can see, playing against type, I’m relatively optimistic about 2022. Happy New Year!

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times; but then, what year isn’t? Look on the bright side: we didn’t have to watch Trump on TV the entire year.

Here are the biggest stories of 2021, in reverse order:

1. BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: The Olympics went off reasonably smoothly in spite of the pandemic. Americans were subjected nightly to the antics of Simone Biles, but ultimately won the medal count.
2. THE BEAR GROWLS: Putin responded to a drop in popularity by ramping up repression at home and threatening military action in Ukraine.
3. SO DOES THE DRAGON: The Chinese continued to choke the life out of Hong Kong and escalated their threats to Taiwan.
4. BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN?: The Iranian government, now in the hands of extreme hard liners, showed little interest in returning to the nuclear agreement. Israel was alarmed. War was a serious possibility.
5. ANTI-VAXXERS EVERYWHERE: The American populist right embraced the anti-vaxxer cause, which spread to Europe and Australia, as well. Efforts to control the virus were hampered as a result.
6. INFLATION: Prices were rising all over the world (except in Japan) at the end of the year, due primarily to supply chain issues caused by the pandemic. It was worse in the US than elsewhere, however, as the American economy was more buoyant than Europe’s. Monetary and fiscal tightening loomed.
7. THE BIDEN AGENDA STARTS AND STALLS: Expectations for the Biden agenda were unrealistically high on the left, given the composition of Congress, and were only partially met. Morale on the progressive side slumped.
8. AFGHANISTAN DEBACLE: Whether you agree with Biden’s decision to comply with Trump’s agreement and withdraw (I didn’t), you have to respect the courage it took to avoid kicking the can again. American prestige was damaged, but the world will get over it, just as it did after Vietnam and Iraq.
9. JANUARY 6: The GOP had an opportunity to distance itself from Trump and the rioters; instead, it excommunicated Trump’s critics and called the rioters “tourists”. It is now an overwhelmingly pro-insurrectionist party with zero respect for liberal democratic norms.
10. THE VIRUS: Yes, the virus was the biggest story of the year, just as it was in 2020. Anti-vaxxers are still dying in huge numbers every day. At least most of the American dead are Trump voters.

2021 was a year of stops and starts. The virus appeared to be waning, but roared back. Inflation was supposed to be transitory, but wasn’t, exactly. Biden’s agenda moved forward, and then stalled. We had a debt ceiling crisis, then we didn’t, then it was looming, and then it was resolved. Putin threatened to invade, but hasn’t–at least not yet.

No one exemplified this trend better than Joe Manchin, who permitted parts of Biden’s agenda to move forward, but not all of it. He is the fulcrum of the teeter-totter that was Washington in 2021. As I’ve noted before, you can make a good argument that he represents the will of the American people, as expressed by the results of the 2020 election. Whether this constitutes good policy or not is another question.

For his accomplishments, for better or worse, West Virginia Joe is the Manchin of the year for 2021.

So the first year with Biden is done.

I can’t say it’s always been fun.

Expectations were high,

But it ends with a sigh.

Will Year 2 look a lot like Year 1?

As I noted in a previous post, there are three different ideal types of reactionary: religious reactionaries, who are primarily concerned with what they view as America’s moral decline; racists; and economic reactionaries, who have lost status (largely to women) as a result of the shift to a knowledge-based economy. Where does Trump stand with each of these groups?

Given his conspicuous moral failings, Trump is viewed as being a necessary evil at best by the religious crowd. With the racists, given his passion for stopping illegal immigration, his position is ironclad. With the economic reactionaries, the situation is mixed. On the one hand, his swagger, misogyny, and enthusiasm for protecting jobs typically associated with men (e.g., miner; steelworker) play well with this group; on the other hand, his privileged background and his support of anti-worker policies do not.

Can any of these voters be peeled away from him in either a primary or a general election? An openly devout, but equally pugnacious candidate would certainly win voters in a Republican primary. A swaggering economic populist would also have a chance with white workers in either a primary or a general election. It would be rough sledding, though. Nobody has ever spent more energy pandering to reactionaries than Trump. It’s all he knows how to do.

I have always believed that Netanyahu’s ultimate goal was to force the United States to cut the grass in Iran, while the Israelis watched and cheered us on. In public, however, he argued that withdrawing from the nuclear agreement and applying “maximum pressure” would force the Iranians to capitulate without a war. Trump bought into this line of thinking, with results that are troublesome for the US, and potentially disastrous for Israel. Today, the Iranians are much closer to building a bomb than ever before, and are showing no inclination to return to the original agreement.

So, what now? Biden wants to keep his focus on containing China, not on entering into a perpetual low-intensity war in the Middle East; in any event, if you accept that an Iranian bomb is an existential threat (an extremely debatable premise), it is to Israel, not to us. The Israelis, for their part, insist that they don’t have the military capability to do the requisite damage to the Iranian nuclear program by themselves. The Bennett government, as a result, is making it pretty clear that, in the face of Iranian intransigence, Biden is morally obligated to become Israel’s yard guy.

My guess is that he will refuse. He may facilitate an Israeli lawn mowing operation by providing them with access to advanced American weapons, however. We’ll see.

Ron DeSantis may well fancy himself as a subtropical Viktor Orban. Based on the characteristics of illiberalism that I have identified previously, how does he stack up?

Pretty well, albeit in a somewhat petty way. Here is the record:

1. STACK THE ELECTORAL DECK IN YOUR FAVOR: The Florida GOP has, of course, pushed the envelope on gerrymandering. In addition, Florida approved legislation making it more difficult for minorities to vote in a myriad of small ways in the last session.
2. STIFLE THE VOICES OF THE LEFT: The best way to prevent the circulation of ideas you don’t like, of course, is to fire people or impose criminal penalties on them for using their First Amendment rights. Here, we have the unconstitutional legislation (enforcement currently enjoined) disregarding the free speech rights of large social media companies (but not Disney), the new rules prohibiting the teaching of what is alleged to be CRT, and the proposed “Stop Woke Act,” which will provide right-wing parents with a civil cause of action against local school boards which permit the teaching of CRT. The last of these was obviously inspired by the Texas abortion vigilante act. Who says Florida has nothing to learn from Texas?
3. LIMIT FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND POLITICIZE LAW ENFORCEMENT: Thanks to another piece of GOP legislation, people participating peacefully in a demonstration may now be held criminally liable for the violent acts of others. It has already been made clear that this act will not be used against Cubans rallying against the Cuban regime in Miami; it will be employed purely against left-wing protests.
4. FIGHT THE CULTURE WARS TO KEEP THE BASE HAPPY: The “Stop Woke Act,” again, as well as rules against transgender athletes and, of course, consistent and vehement support for anti-vaxxers. Set the virus free, I say!

Sound familiar? It may be small potatoes, in the big picture, but the trend is painfully clear. Imagine what could be done at the federal level with some imagination.

Ron DeSantis won the 2018 election by an eyelash. He has presided over, shall we say, difficult times in Florida. And yet, he is doing nothing to win over swing voters; like Trump, his entire agenda consists of throwing red meat to the base. In particular, he has openly sided with anti-vaxxers, even though polls indicate their cause is unpopular. Can these tactics possibly make sense?

Yes, for two reasons. First, 2022 is not a presidential election year, so turnout will be relatively low, and base mobilization will be decisive. Anti-vaxxers make up a significant part of the base. Second, dead people can’t vote. Living anti-vaxxers appreciate the degree of freedom DeSantis has accorded them, and as for the dead ones, who cares?

If Putin decides to invade, he will face a reasonably competent Ukrainian military, irregular patriotic forces, and some terrorists. The ensuing occupation will not be a picnic. Could it turn into a new Afghanistan?

No, due to geography and topography. Afghanistan has lots of mountains and poor roads; Ukraine is flat. The Taliban could use Pakistan as a refuge; there is no such refuge for a Ukrainian resistance force. Afghanistan was remote from Russia; Ukraine is next door, and its culture is easy to understand. As a result, the war and the occupation would resemble a much larger version of Chechnya, not the Soviet and American failures in Afghanistan.

Which tells you why the Russians should be concerned. Terrorist strikes within the Russian heartland will be a huge problem for Putin, and leaving Ukraine as a cinder won’t exactly do wonders for the Russian economy. The Pottery Barn rule applies here for the Russians, just as it did for America in Iraq.

If you’re a reactionary, you have probably spent a good chunk of your life screaming about the size of the federal government and making a case for states’ rights. But now that you have used base mobilization, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College to win power in Washington, you are going to find that kind of rhetoric embarrassing, because the locus of opposition to your regime is in the blue states, which represent more than half of the national population and wealth. How can you effectively force them to become red states without looking like a complete hypocrite?

The best way would be to manufacture some sort of “emergency” that you can use as a pretext to send in troops to serve as an occupation force. If you don’t have the nerve to do that, you will have to rely on legislative carrots and sticks to persuade the blue state electorate to give up their liberal ideas. The limitation on the SALT deduction in the Trump tax cut can serve as a template for you. Draconian restrictions on voting would also help.

It will be a long, grinding process, but if you can manipulate the system to stay in power for a decade or so, it could be done.