Cromwell

In a painfully transparent effort to distance themselves from the stench of Trump’s bromance with Putin, some GOP leaders are demanding that Biden unilaterally impose sanctions before any kind of invasion. This would eliminate any leverage we have to prevent the invasion and create serious rifts with our NATO allies, who clearly and reasonably want any punishment to fit the crime. It would thus accomplish much of what Putin wants without actually forcing him to go to the trouble of invading.

Is this just a more devious GOP gambit to make Russia great again? Or is it pure cynical opportunism aimed at the electorate? Both, perhaps?

Who is more dangerous: Trump or DeSantis? Here are my observations:

1. Trump is by far the weakest candidate the GOP could run in 2024. The election would be another referendum on him, which plays to the advantage of the Democrats, particularly if things aren’t going well.
2. President DeSantis would spend his entire term owning the libs and telling blue America he hates us, just like Trump.
3. In addition, he would be more likely, based on his record in Florida, to turn the GOP’s culture war complaints into enforceable legislation.
4. But there is no reason to believe that DeSantis has any great desire to overthrow the government to satisfy his wounded pride. Thus, he is the less dangerous candidate.

I am reading more and more articles which suggest that a significant part of the right has gravitated from Trump to DeSantis. You would expect Trump to respond with a flamethrower; after all, that’s what he does. Instead, he is papering over the rift. What does that mean?

It means he is genuinely fearful of DeSantis, and thinks appeasement (probably combined with some quiet backstabbing) has a better chance of success than open conflict.

Who is the more dangerous of the two potential candidates? For that, tune in tomorrow.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases involving a very limited use of race as a factor in college admissions. Given the composition of the Court, it seems likely that it will overturn 45 years of precedent and find this kind of affirmative action unconstitutional. How will they do it, and what will it mean for other kinds of affirmative action programs?

The admissions cases are not as easy to overturn as Roe. The Court will either have to find that diversity is not a compelling interest, notwithstanding all of those years of precedent saying that it is, that the record in these cases does not show that affirmative action leads to diversity in any meaningful sense of the word, or that times have changed since the 1970s, so historically disadvantaged groups no longer require any kind of protection.

The most limited and least embarrassing rationale is #2. My guess is the Court will go with that one in order to avoid the perception of political hackdom. The other two (particularly #3) clearly open up other forms of affirmative action to a successful legal challenge. It will just be a matter of time.

There isn’t any doubt that Putin wants to use Ukraine as a wedge to divide and dissolve both the EU and NATO. He is unlikely to succeed, however, because neither NATO nor the EU has any treaty obligations to Ukraine. He is more likely to unite the two than to divide them, since they are not going to be asked to do a whole lot to deter him.

No, in order to accomplish his objectives, Putin is going to have to be willing to use his Ukraine pressure tactics on a vulnerable EU/NATO member. That could be Poland, but a Baltic state is a more likely target.

To generate a direct conflict with a NATO member would risk escalation and a war that could destroy both Putin and Russia. Is that a gamble he is willing to take?

Let’s hope we never find out.

In what I would call a fruitful coincidence, Netflix released a movie about the making of the Munich agreement last week. I’m part of the way through it. If it says anything significant, I will let you know.

Having said that, Geneva cannot be Munich, for the following reasons:

1. NATO has no treaty obligations to Ukraine;
2. While Czechoslovakia had strong defenses along the German border, Ukraine is essentially defenseless; and
3. Hitler didn’t have nuclear weapons.

Biden, unlike Chamberlain, is in no position to make any commitments to defend Ukraine. All he can do is pile on the pain if Putin decides to invade.

So the crisis rolls on in Ukraine.

Putin clearly sees something to gain.

De-escalate now!

Find an answer somehow.

To do otherwise would be insane.

A state-funded adoption agency has refused to permit an adoption by Jewish parents on the basis that it would violate the Christian religious beliefs of the people who run the agency. By Tennessee law, this is a valid argument.

Whoops! This is a classic example of a state assuming that the fundamental disagreement in society is between the supposed religion of “secular humanism” and all traditionally religious people, not between the various types of traditional religions. The result is a classic, and highly embarrassing, episode of anti-Semitism.

Let’s hope this case winds up in the US Supreme Court. I can’t wait to see how our doggedly Catholic right-wing justices would deal with it.

Are you better off than you were 23 years ago? It is a fair question to direct to the Russian public.

Here is my analysis of the question:

1. POLITICAL RIGHTS: When Putin took office, Russia was a very shaky liberal democracy. Today, it is an authoritarian state, sliding into fascism. Elections are rigged; political opponents are jailed, shot, or poisoned; the media are totally subservient; and the internet is increasingly controlled by the government.
2. ECONOMY: For about ten years, the economy grew briskly as a result of rising oil prices. For the last ten, growth has been very minimal, due to sanctions arising from Putin’s foreign adventures and the government’s desire to keep the economy completely in its own hands. Liberalization is impossible, because it would create potential centers of power in a political system that assumes Putin is the source of all wealth.
3. FOREIGN POLICY: It is often said that Putin has played a bad hand very well. But has he? At one point, all of Ukraine was set to fall peacefully into his hands; today, most of the country (and certainly its most valuable parts) is mobilized against him. His intervention in Syria only maintained the status quo, at a terrible price. He is now morally obligated to provide military support for inept, unpopular dictators throughout the former USSR. The only place he has succeeded is in turning voters against liberal democracy in the EU and the US. Will that really benefit Russia in the long run? I have my doubts.

The current inflation rate in the EU is just under 5 percent. It is over 5 percent in the UK. It is fair, then, to assume that the common impacts of the pandemic–supply chain problems and all that–are the biggest component in the US inflation rate, with the rest being attributable to poorer working conditions for essential employees (a major cause of the Great Resignation) and the size of the pandemic bill.

Our current inflation rate is about 7 percent. It would be fair to ask the voters if they would agree to give their stimulus payments back in exchange for reducing the inflation rate to 5 percent. Do you think they would say yes?

Probably not, because, in spite of the inflation rate, they are actually better off than they were a year ago, and they know it.

To borrow a line from an old Carly Simon song, the right hates Biden for what he is, but the left hates him for what he’s not. It seems to be universally held among activists that he just isn’t up to the job, because he can’t force Manchin and Sinema to stay on the reservation. But is this a fair analysis? Let’s give the record a fair and balanced review:

1. FOREIGN POLICY: Afghanistan was a debacle, albeit a principled and arguably necessary one. There has been no meaningful progress with Iran. However, we have taken important steps in Asia to maintain a stronger counterbalance to China, and our relations with our allies, while not perfect, have improved.
2. NATIONAL UNITY: With the recent exception of some statements about the GOP and voting rights, Biden has avoided demonizing the right, as he promised. The GOP has responded by embracing the rioters, stoking the culture wars, and maintaining a warm relationship with Trump. In short, things are worse than ever, but it isn’t Biden’s fault.
3. ECONOMY: Unemployment and poverty are way down, while the markets and wages are up. Sounds great, right? The public doesn’t see it that way, for the reasons I listed in my last post, although they might if you ask the right questions.
4. VIRUS: Biden did a good job of making vaccines available to everyone. He only imposed mandates as a last resort. It’s hard to see what more he can do.
5. LEGISLATIVE RECORD: The pandemic relief bill probably added a bit to the inflation rate, but it did far more good than harm. The infrastructure bill was a genuine bipartisan product. The third part of the program, the BBB, has stalled. A smaller version of it, focusing on climate, may pass. Considering the size of the Democrats’ majorities and Trump’s inability to get anything except a tax cut through the system, it isn’t a bad record, unless your expectations were unrealistic from the start.

It’s a mixed record, to be sure, but whose isn’t?

Paul Krugman wants to know why there is a disconnect between the actual state of the economy and public perceptions of it. There are two simple reasons:

1. While the country is better off than it was last year as a result of rising wages, a low unemployment rate, buoyant markets, and federal pandemic payments, the benefits of the stimulus payment are no longer being felt, while inflation is now. It is a question of timing. That said, I suspect that if you asked the public if they would happily give the stimulus payments back in exchange for lower inflation, they would say no.
2. Unemployment only affects the unemployed. Inflation affects everyone.

It has been obvious for the better part of a year that the Democratic leadership didn’t have the votes to jettison the filibuster and get an ambitious voting rights bill through the Senate. And yet, they went through the motions, and failed. Why?

For three reasons:

1. The party–not just the left or the leadership–genuinely and passionately believes that the GOP vote suppression bills in various states are a threat to liberal democracy. It had to take a stand, even if it failed.
2. There was some lingering hope that peer pressure would force Manchin and Sinema to change their position when push came to shove.
3. The party’s activists would be demoralized if they didn’t try, and would at least give them credit for making the attempt.

The first proposition was debatable; the second was obviously wishful thinking; and the third was wrong. To the left, which always had ridiculously high expectations for the current regime, this is just another example of its fecklessness.

Libertarianism is usually described as the belief that each individual should have the right to live his life as he sees fit so long as he doesn’t damage the rights of others. I often refer to reactionaries as “faux libertarians.” Why is that?

Because their beliefs and behavior conflict with the definition in three ways. First, the predominantly white Christian reactionaries identify as an oppressed group, not as a collection of separate individuals. Second, they clearly assert the right to damage the interests of others, as evidenced by their refusal to wear masks, get vaccinated, and drive with any sense of courtesy. Finally, the “freedoms” that they value most highly are the “freedom” to oppress historically disadvantaged groups and the “freedom” to avoid being offended by people they dislike. Don’t like the gay pride parade in your town? Use the government to ban it, of course!

Faux libertarianism is about power, not freedom. That’s why reactionaries love Trump so much; he believes in nothing except his own personal awesomeness, winning, and power.

For reasons that I have described in previous posts, and will discuss in more detail at a later date, the Fed’s ability to control the current bout of inflation through interest rates is pretty limited; all it can do is reduce demand by driving down the markets and making investors feel poor. Will that happen, or will the Fed mostly ride it out and wait for conditions to improve?

At this point, I don’t know, but the truth should become apparent in the near future. One possibility is that the pandemic evolves into something less significant, supply chain issues are resolved, the Great Resignation comes to an end, and fiscal policy is tightened slowly; as a result, the markets thrive, inflation is brought under control, and we have a vibrant dollar store economy. The other possibility is a Fed-driven recession caused by a market crash.

Much depends on the answer to the question, including, but not limited to, the outcome of the 2022 election and the health of American liberal democracy.