Cromwell

To the surprise of exactly nobody, Trump has already previewed a major theme of the upcoming convention by telling the world that only he stands between real America and anarchy. This is, of course, an echo of his infamous “I alone” speech from 2016.

If I’m a conservative with a mind that hasn’t atrophied too much, I would ask the following questions:

1. You said that you alone would put an end to violent crime. Why didn’t you do it? What are you waiting for?
2. How can you say that you alone can keep me safe from anarchist violence when you’re not doing anything to stop it now?
3. In fact, isn’t opposition to you a big reason for the protests?

When I start imagining the Republican convention, the first image that comes to mind is a drill team performing a dance number, with half of the participants carrying a cross, and the other half brandishing assault rifles. It is a right-wing response to Beyonce’s “Formation.”

The two icons have equal and complementary meanings to reactionaries. The cross stands for the imagined divine support for a social order in which white Christian men are on top, and everyone else isn’t. The gun means strength, independence, and limited government, as opposed to noisy women and minorities whining about privilege and demanding free stuff from the government.

That’s the message that Trump will be sending next week. He and his allies–the defenders of the cross and the gun–are the only true Americans; everyone else can love it or get out.

After Trump, which Republican would you most like to see go crashing to an ignominious defeat? Lindsey Graham? Mitch McConnell? Someone else?

I’ll give you my opinion (I admit, I’m struggling with it), along with anyone else’s, next Friday.

At 10:30 last night, if you had asked me, I would have settled for barely competent. Instead, Biden’s speech was . . . terrific.

It fit right in with the taped introduction. It didn’t have any pablum or filler. It immediately reassured the reactionary right, albeit in language that could have been a little more explicit. It was delivered clearly and forcefully. It was consistent with the themes that ran throughout the convention. It contained just enough policy to be meaningful. Finally, it made the contrast between the personalities and programs of the two candidates as stark as it could possibly be. I couldn’t possibly want more than that.

Kudos, too, to Julia-Louis Dreyfus, who was perfect. I wish she had been on all four nights.

Next week, Trump will try to make the case that Biden is too old and mentally slow to be our president. Good luck with that.

On the ex-president named Barack.

He put Donald Trump in the dock.

He called him unfit.

That’s true, where I sit.

He’s a shepherd who preys on his flock.

Reactionary political figures typically succeed by persuading their followers to believe them instead of their lying eyes. If you’re greedy, the logical next step in the process is to sell worthless products and services instead of ideas to the faithful.

Just ask Steve Bannon. And he’s not the only one. Imagine what Trump could do with that market once he leaves office. It boggles the mind.

The unacknowledged elephant in the room at the convention thus far has been the roughly 30 percent of Americans who unconditionally support Trump because they believe they are threatened with extinction by liberal elites who hate white Christians. Trump himself is only important because they stand behind him. They are the force that potentially opposes liberal democracy in this country.

It will be up to Biden to reassure them if he really wants to bring the country together and protect the system. Will he try? I don’t know, but I certainly hope so.

Ladies Night!

The Harris speech was OK, but here’s what I will remember from last night:

1. The tape of Obama giving Biden the medal was genuinely touching.
2. Warren wasn’t on the screen very long, but she made it count. She looked like a hungry predator going after Trump.
3. Mostly, I will remember the Obama speech. The gravity and brutal candor of its delivery made me think of something from the Roman Republic. It was both impressive and genuinely chilling, which was undoubtedly the effect he wanted. Cicero or Cato the Elder would have been proud.

Trump delenda est!

Fox News is obviously the mouthpiece for the Reactionary faction of the GOP, but it is far more than that. Its hosts identify issues and shape opinions, even in the White House. It transmits and gives legitimacy to conspiracy theories. It also makes lots and lots of money.

Two questions for the future are pertinent:

1. Tucker Carlson is the country’s leading “national conservative,” which essentially means that he thinks the GOP should ditch its Reagan era economic policies and regulate business in favor of white Christian workers. Will Fox as a whole follow that line, or stick with the status quo?
2. Millions of reactionaries have made it clear that they value their conservative social ideas far more than our liberal democratic system. Fox supports them and thereby damages public support for the system, but push has not come to shove yet. Would the Murdochs rather own the house broadcaster for an American Orban than one of several networks in a free democratic system? I’m not sure even they know the answer to that question.

Do you remember 2009-2010? The Democrats had what appeared to be a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but it didn’t feel that way, largely because Joe Lieberman was always threatening to derail important legislation. It was very annoying, and so was he.

Even if the Democrats succeed in scraping out a tiny majority on paper in the Senate this year, they will have a similar problem; this one is named Joe Manchin. Manchin is 51 percent Democrat and 49 percent Republican. Given the state of opinion in West Virginia, he has to be. His vote can never be taken for granted, particularly on energy issues. A nominal majority may well not be an effective one.

If we get the reasonable best case scenario, expect lots of money to be flowing to West Virginia in the next two years. There is no plausible alternative if the Biden agenda is to stay on track.

Empathy rules, and the roll call is still tiresome. But here’s a question for you: who testifies that Trump is a great guy during the Republican convention, and who would be stupid enough to believe it?

The left has correctly identified the filibuster as a major obstacle to its agenda. Biden has been equivocal. Why?

For three interconnected reasons. First of all, the filibuster isn’t even an issue unless the Democrats win an effective (as opposed to a nominal–I will post on this tomorrow) majority in the Senate, which is a toss-up at this point. Second, Biden has great respect for the traditions of the Senate; there is no point in making clear statements that you’re in favor of blowing something up if it won’t do any good. Third, unity is Biden’s brand; it would be a mistake to jeopardize it unless it is absolutely necessary.

I suspect Biden, as president, will initially attempt to make deals with GOP senators, using the potential abolition of the filibuster as leverage if he plausibly has a Democratic majority in his favor. He would only campaign for its abolition if it is feasible and necessary to get his agenda through, and if GOP senators prove to be beyond redemption, which seems pretty likely.

Due to the conflicts among the four ideological factions, the GOP has a schizophrenic view of the state. It is as libertarian as can be with regard to business interests, but authoritarian on social issues, because the impacts of the cudgel are felt by Democrats, not Republicans. Freedom for me, but the smack of authority for thee, in other words.

This paradigm doesn’t work in a pandemic, because GOP voters can suffer from and spread the virus just as easily as Democrats. The only way you can stop a pandemic is through action, whether voluntary or mandated, which includes everyone. So how does the GOP deal with this clear conceptual failure? By pretending that the pandemic doesn’t exist, talking about other issues, and waiting for better days.

It is just like 2008, when it was obvious to the public that the GOP standard formula of tax cuts and deregulation was not a plausible solution to a financial crisis. Let’s hope for the same electoral result.

I wasn’t able to watch last night, but it is clear that the overriding theme was unity against a dangerous, incompetent, corrupt wannabe authoritarian. That is exactly the way the convention should start, given the present circumstances. The more progressive, hopeful stuff should build to a crescendo at the end. Complaints from the left that the vision is being downplayed are premature–wait until Wednesday and Thursday!

The two wings of the Democratic Party have significant disagreement on the following points:

1. THE TREATMENT OF BUSINESS: The left views business as the enemy. Big business in particular inevitably oppresses workers and exercises undue influence over government policies on taxation and regulation. Liberals see business as the goose that lays the golden egg–to be nurtured, taxed, and regulated carefully so as to create the maximum benefit for society.
2. FREE SPEECH AND SOCIAL ISSUES: The left thinks that traditional views on social issues are self-evidently wrong, that the opinions of historically oppressed people are presumptively correct, and that it is necessary to censor clearly false right-wing and even centrist views in order to encourage more speech from the oppressed people. Liberals don’t believe that social conservatives are necessarily “deplorable”, and don’t support censorship of anything but the most extreme opinions.
3. PAYING THE BILL: The left either thinks that the wealthy will pick up the entire tab, or goes as far to believe that costs are irrelevant. Liberals worry about costs and take the position that most social programs should be paid for in one way or another.
4. HOW DO WE WIN?: The left thinks that elections are won by mobilizing apathetic left-wing voters and that progress on legislative issues ultimately results from dominating the street. Liberals believe in winning over swing voters and in making deals in the legislative process.
5. INCREMENTAL VS. REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE: The left thinks the American people are crying out for fundamental political, economic, and social change. Liberals like their change to be slow and easily digestible.

The liberals won this battle during the primaries, but it isn’t over. You will hear a little bit about it during the convention.