Cromwell

We know that Biden will use the opportunity to bash Trump for his authoritarian sympathies and for his vacuous ideas about policy. He will also do his best to set the record straight on the condition of the country in 2020, and how things have improved since then. But what about the future? Will we see a return of the FDR for the 21st century?

Probably not, for two reasons. First, it is highly unlikely that the election will deliver a solid Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, so the plausibility of an ambitious agenda is very limited. Second, Biden will want to portray himself as a genuine constitutional conservative, in contrast with the nihilistic Trump, in order to win over moderate swing voters. Proposing a far-reaching agenda that could lead to increased inflation and a confrontation with the Supreme Court does not further that objective.

The convention is scheduled for the middle of July in Milwaukee. It will, of course, be dominated by Trump, who will spend most of his time and energy trying to persuade us that America under Biden is a hellhole run by woke women and minorities that has been invaded by illegal immigrants. He will also talk at length about the rigged 2020 election, his ongoing legal martyrdom, and his fears for 2024. But what will he say about his agenda for the future? Will he give us a realistic plan to fight inflation? Will he say much about what happens next in Gaza? Will he make the case for tariffs? Will he reveal his secret plan to end the war in Ukraine? Will he say more about federal regulation of abortion? Will he cut taxes for rich people again? And so on.

My guess is that the answer to all of those questions is no. Trump has a vision of America, but no plausible plan to get us there. Whatever plans he does have would be very unpopular. It is in his interests to say as little about them as possible.

It’s fairly clear that Biden’s plan was to withdraw from center stage and let Trump destroy himself in front of the public. Why not? It worked last time, and it isn’t as if Trump has become more rational and disciplined in the last four years.

As of today, the plan isn’t working, for two reasons. First, it was inevitable that the record of Biden the incumbent would get more scrutiny than Biden the challenger. Second, Trump has blundered into an approach in which his extreme opinions simply aren’t getting much public attention. By refusing to debate and spending his time in courtrooms, he escapes any meaningful discussion about his views on Ukraine, Gaza, taxes, climate change, entitlement programs, abortion, and the like.

This is going to start changing soon. The trial should be over sometime this week. The first debate will take place in about a month. The conventions will come next. Supreme Court decisions that will impact the entire country, probably in a negative way, will require comment shortly. The public is going to start paying more attention to Trump’s policy ideas and less to his victimization narrative. That should help.

The prosecutors will rebuild their case brick by brick during their closing argument. They will identify each piece of evidence that supports their position on each element of the crime. Much of their time will be spent talking about Michael Cohen and how other testimony, documents, and common sense all buttress what he has to say.

But will they focus more on Cohen, or Trump? What will they say, if anything, about the absence of testimony from Weisselberg? Will they identify a single underlying felony, or make arguments on multiple grounds? And how will they connect the false records with the related crime or crimes?

We will find out tomorrow.

We are inevitably told on Memorial Day that the dead perished fighting for our freedom. That isn’t really true. No hostile power other than the USSR had the will and the ability to deprive us of our freedom, and we never had to fight a war against them. Even the Nazis probably had neither the strength or the desire to invade and conquer us.

So the fallen died fighting for American interests, not our way of life. At times, you could argue that the wars they fought weren’t even in our interests. Does that diminish the value of their sacrifice? To me, the opposite is true. It’s relatively easy to fight when your back is against the wall; the sacrifice is greater and more impressive when it is made voluntarily with less at stake.

Trump appeared at a national convention of libertarians and asked for support yesterday. It didn’t go well. He wound up mocking the party, which isn’t usually a good way to win votes.

Why did this happen? Because Trump is a PBP on taxing and spending issues and a Reactionary on everything else. He doesn’t want to reduce the size of the state; he wants to bend it to his will and use it to oppress his opponents. He wants freedom for his supporters, but government-imposed misery for everyone else.

He is the opposite of a libertarian.

In spite of rapid technological change, it was an age of decadence, according to many of the intellectuals of the time. Birth rates were falling in the developed world, which caused grave concern to leaders who saw it as a symptom of eventual decline and surrender to inferior cultures. Homosexuality was on the rise, to the alarm of many. Women were making new demands on the system, which was fighting back. Mental health issues were much discussed, largely due to the unforeseen negative impacts of the new technology, and attempts were being made to revive true masculine virtues.

Is it 2024 or 1914? You decide.

In the next few weeks, I expect the Supreme Court to strike a number of hammer blows against the traditional instruments of liberal governance. The judicial counterrevolution will at that point be more or less complete. The McConnell Project will be in place–ironically, just at the time its author is fading into irrelevance. The center left, with its respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, will be helpless to do anything about it. Is that the end of the story?

No, because Trump 2.0 will make a habit of blatantly disregarding judicial decisions he doesn’t like, probably starting with some on immigration law. This will, in the long run, provide cover to the left to do the same thing. Since the Supremes won’t reform themselves, and the system won’t allow Congress or the public to do it, they will ultimately be checked by being ignored.

The trial is rigged, according to Trump and his GOP admirers. Justice Merchan is biased against him, because he and his daughters have some ties to the Democratic Party. He should be required to recuse himself.

But when Justice Thomas refuses to recuse himself on January 6 cases in spite of his wife’s activism in favor of Trump, and when Justice Alito flies flags supporting the insurrectionists, do they have a problem with that? No, indeed. Complaining about the behavior of reactionary judges is an attack on the rule of law.

Here are three things the Trump defense team won’t do in their closing statement:

1. They won’t offer a counternarrative. There are no plausible options, and there is no evidence in their favor.
2. They won’t spend a lot of time talking about Stormy Daniels, other than to describe her as a grifter trying to extort money from their client. They don’t have any testimony disproving her story, and it is peripheral to the case in any event.
3. They won’t dare bang on and on about how the case is bogus, and Trump is being crucified by New York liberals. You may hear a little bit of that just to keep the client happy, but emphasizing that narrative is insulting to both the judge and the jury.

The defense will spend the vast majority of their time talking about what an incredible scumbag Michael Cohen is. If the judge’s instructions permit it, they will also make legal arguments about the connection between the records in question and an underlying felony. Those are the two weakest points of the prosecution’s case.

A few years ago, I indicated in a post that analogizing Trump to a mob boss was insulting to mob bosses, because they have to give as well as receive loyalty, and Trump never does. The current hush money trial is a perfect example of this.

A mob boss would have reached out to Cohen and credibly promised to take care of him and his family in exchange for his silence. Trump distanced himself from Cohen and refused to pay his legal bills. What did he think would happen next?

In other words, Trump isn’t Vito Corleone–he’s Fredo.

Kamala Harris has come to the White House to talk campaign strategy.

B: We need to discuss your role in the campaign. It’s going to be very important.

H: That’s good to hear.

B: It isn’t just for this race. Your position as the presumptive leader of the party depends a lot on your performance between now and November. It’s an opportunity to shine and save the country at the same time.

H: I’m up for it. What’s the plan?

B: You’re going to be in charge of rallying the base. We need them to come out and vote in November as if their lives depend on it, because they do. I’ll be the voice of moderation in Washington, running the country competently and appealing to swing voters.

H: Sounds reasonable. What do you want me to focus on?

B: Reproductive rights should be a major issue for us. You’re obviously better positioned to discuss them than I am. It isn’t just abortion–it includes contraception, as well. We need to highlight what Trump is likely to do with the regulations and the Comstock Act even if he somehow tells the truth and doesn’t push for a complete ban. And we need to tie the issue to Republican attacks on other rights, like voting.

H: I’m already on that one.

B: Climate change is another biggie. We need to contrast Republican denialism with our legislative successes with electric cars. We represent the future; they’re the dead and buried past. To make things tangible for people who don’t get it, we need to talk about the rising cost of insurance, and how denying climate change is already causing people financial problems. It isn’t just a matter of protecting our grandchildren; we need to do something for ourselves, right away.

H: Makes sense.

B: Immigration. Thus far, all of the discussion has been about how open the border is. We need to change the terms of the argument to focus on Trump’s plans. Using the military in violation of the law to deport 15 million people. What will that mean for the country? How will we replace all of those workers? And what about the plan to bring family separation back? Not to mention Trump’s efforts to destroy the bipartisan consensus to improve the current situation.

H: All legitimate points.

B: We need to talk about our efforts to reduce costs for everyone, including young people. We are forgiving student debt. We reduced the cost of insulin. We’re making progress on prescription drug prices. We’re exposing shrinkflation. What is Trump doing? Driving up prices with tariffs and causing labor shortages. Does that make sense?

H: Clearly not.

B: On Gaza, we need to tell our people that we’re supporting the elimination of Hamas as a necessary step to a Palestinian state. We’re trying to save as many lives as possible in that process. Trump just wants the Israelis to blow all of Gaza up and then build housing for settlers on it.

H: Anything else?

B: Tell black voters that we have record low unemployment for minorities, and that inequality is being reduced. We also support affirmative action. Trump wants to get rid of what’s left of it and tell black people to just get over hundreds of years of history.

H: Sounds like a plan. (She leaves)

Trump consistently accuses Biden of being responsible for all of the charges against him. That’s a lie, of course, but it’s particularly rich coming from someone who professes to believe in the unitary executive theory. If you accept the logic of that theory, Biden has every right to do what he is being falsely accused of doing.

Think of it as the flip side of Trump’s hypocrisy on the immunity defense, which, if taken seriously, protects Biden from prosecution if he orders Trump’s extrajudicial execution.

It is clear now that Trump does not plan to testify. On balance, this is a wise decision, for the reasons I have listed previously, but it creates some public relations problems with the base, which may view his silence as weakness. How will he deal with this issue?

If he’s somehow acquitted, he’ll say it is proof that the sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels never happened, even though a not guilty verdict would not really establish that. If he winds up with a hung jury, he’ll treat that as an exoneration, even though it won’t be. If he is found guilty, in addition to saying the trial was rigged, he’ll blame his lawyers. If he had only taken the stand, he would have demolished the prosecution’s case and proved his innocence.

There are two points of vulnerability for the prosecution in the Trump case. The first is the lack of corroboration for Cohen on the issue of Trump’s involvement in the reimbursement check scheme; the second concerns the relationship between the allegedly fraudulent records and a separate felony they were intended to further.

The latter point is primarily a legal question; it will be addressed in a jury instruction. Both sides will be fighting to get their legal interpretation of the New York statute included in the instructions. Whoever prevails in that battle, which will take place outside of the jury’s hearing, will probably win the case.

Based on the judge’s previous rulings and his perception of the behavior of the defense team, I’m betting on the prosecution, but we’ll have to wait and see.