Cromwell

You could reasonably say that Trump was the first prominent anti-woke warrior, but he did it with his mouth, not his pen; other than picking reactionary Supreme Court justices, he didn’t actually do much to help the cause. Red state governors and legislatures have subsequently taken practical action in the form of new legislation and regulations to muzzle and oppress the left. What should we expect from Trump 2.0? Will the war on wokeness be extended by the federal government to blue states?

Transgender people didn’t remove Trump from power, and his first priority will be revenge, so it is unlikely that wokeness issues will be at the top of his to-do list. It is virtually certain, however, that his appointees will be ready to pick up the torch and fight wokeness from the minute they take office. In particular, you can expect a federal war on our elite universities. As I’ve noted before, they cannot be “reformed,” but they can be damaged or even destroyed, much to the nation’s detriment.

Michelle Goldberg correctly notes that 2020 was the high-water mark for wokeness. It has been all downhill since then. Will we miss it, as she suggests, and why is it on the run?

There are several reasons for its apparent demise. The most popular platform for the communication of woke views, Twitter, now belongs to a man who despises the far left. Some woke views, particularly on gender, never resonated with the center left. Others, such as “defund the police,” backfired both practically and politically in the real world. The best explanation, however, is that Trump’s outrageous behavior drove the center left into a stronger alliance with the woke warriors; when he left office, the alliance evaporated.

Wokeness isn’t going away completely, however; it is just in hibernation. If Trump wins the election, it will be back with a vengeance. Even if it doesn’t, demographic changes make it likely that a relatively woke candidate will be the Democratic nominee in 2028.

Knowing that Michael Cohen is neither likable nor credible on his own, the prosecution has built a scaffold of corroboration for his testimony. If Donald Trump–the man who told 30,000 lies while in office, according to the WaPo–decides to testify, he won’t have any such support. He will be on his own.

As a result, you have to think that Trump and his lawyers have spent the weekend arguing about whether he should testify or not. Trump thinks he is the smartest man in the world, and the ultimate salesman; he may also feel that the base wants him to vindicate himself. He will want to take the stand. His lawyers know that he will make a terrible witness and will try to explain that to him as tactfully as possible.

Who wins the tug-of-war? We’ll know early next week. One thing is for certain–the entertainment value of a Trump cross-examination would be off the charts.

Forget the noise; the only four points of Michael Cohen’s testimony that are essential to the prosecution are as follows:

1. The hush money payment was made at the direction of Trump. Cohen did not do it for his own purposes;
2. The payment was made to assist the campaign, not to protect Trump’s family;
3. The payments to Cohen were a reimbursement, not compensation for legal services; and
4. Trump personally approved the decision to falsely identify the payments to Cohen as compensation for legal services.

Given Cohen’s limited credibility as a witness, how are these statements corroborated? #1 is consistent with common sense; would Cohen really spend that much of his own money with no expectation of reimbursement? #2 is supported by plenty of testimony from a variety of sources that the campaign was in a panic after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. #3 is corroborated by notes made by the Trump Organization’s accountant. #4 is the shakiest; it is supported only by testimony and written excerpts proving that Trump was a micromanager who took a personal interest in every penny he spent.

If I were a defense lawyer, I would focus on #4 in my cross-examination of Cohen and in my closing argument. The prosecution needs to be prepared for that.

Trump and Biden have agreed to two debates. There will be no audience, and each candidate’s microphone will apparently be turned off automatically if he exceeds the limits on response time. These rules have been described as a win for Biden; they certainly will make the experience more comfortable for him. But will they help him win votes?

Biden has two objectives at the debates: to show the American public, since it appears they forgot, how unhinged Trump can be; and to prove that Trump has no plausible ideas, and does not even care, about policy. The rules help with the latter, but not the former; in a sense, the more obnoxious Trump is, the better. As a result, the rules should be described as a mixed bag, not a clear win for Biden.

Bret Stephens insists that refusing to provide the Israelis with offensive weapons that are essentially intended to cause a disproportionate number of civilian casualties is a blunder. Let’s analyze his reasons for that:

1. DENYING THE WEAPONS MAKES BIDEN LOOK WEAK: Really? Making demands about the use of weapons and having the Israeli government ostentatiously ignore them makes Biden look strong? In what parallel universe is that true?
2. DENYING THE WEAPONS HELPS HAMAS: The American objective, and the objective of the Israeli military (the cabinet is another matter) is to destroy Hamas by first separating the fighters from the innocent civilians. Measures taken to push the Israeli government in that direction do not help Hamas.
3. DENYING THE WEAPONS PROLONGS THE WAR: The fact that Hamas is regrouping in the northern part of Gaza suggests that the current government strategy is not working and that the war will not be over any time soon. In any event, there is every reason to believe that Bibi wants a long war, and sacrificing speed for more ultimate success in creating a viable, moderate Gaza is a good idea.
4. DENYING THE WEAPONS MAKES AMERICA LOOK LIKE AN UNRELIABLE ALLY: Who is being unreliable here? The party that is giving away weapons, but wants them to be used in a particular way, or the party that thinks it is entitled to use the free weapons in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the gift?
5. DENYING THE WEAPONS WILL HAVE UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES: In reality, having the Israelis abuse our gifts is damaging America’s image in the world and weakening our argument for protecting Ukraine from human rights abuses. Those are the real unforeseen consequences here.

Stephens thinks it would be a good idea for the anti-Zionist demonstrators to take a hard look at their ultimate objectives for the Jews in Israel. What kind of a Palestinian state do they actually want, and how do the Jews fit in it? On that point, we agree completely. Simply mouthing pro-Palestinian slogans without grasping their practical meaning is a fool’s errand.

But Stephens also believes that saving innocent Palestinian lives in Gaza is desirable, but a low priority–an afterthought. He argues that Biden shows strength when he provides offensive weapons to a government that makes a display of ignoring American restrictions on their use. On both of these points, he is wrong. Separating civilians from fighters is the essence of the war, and protecting the former is a necessary step in creating a viable and moderate political entity to run Gaza when it is over. As to the notion that Biden shows strength to the world by refusing to stand up for his principles, that statement practically refutes itself.

Stephens wrote a column in the NYT about a week ago which included a list of reasons why Biden should have continued to let the Israelis ignore American conditions on the use of our offensive weapons. That list will be the subject of my next post.

Michael Cohen’s testimony was clear and persuasive. It was completely consistent with the undisputed facts. From a psychological perspective, his account of his behavior and his motivations made sense. So what does the defense do now?

The Trump team has two options. The first one–typically used when the defendant is guilty–is to poke as many holes in the testimony as possible, keep the defendant off the stand, and argue that the evidence does not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The second is to create a compelling counternarrative through testimony from Trump that vindicates the man on golf cart. This undoubtedly would be Trump’s preferred alternative.

But how can the facts be spun to vindicate Trump? As far as I can see, he either has to persuade the jury (and the voting public) that he is telling the truth, and that everything the prosecution put on (including the documents and the testimony from the disinterested witnesses) is a lie, or he has to admit the hush money payment, but put all of the blame for it on two rogue employees. In light of the corroborating documents and testimony, the obvious motives of the parties, and Trump’s reputation as a micromanager, does that story really make sense?

I would select the first option, but it will only be used if the Trump defense team has control over the client. Don’t bet the ranch on that.

Trump thinks the Israelis are doing badly in Gaza, but not because they’re killing too many Palestinians or avoiding the important political issues; no, his problem with the war is that Israel is losing the public relations battle. In his opinion, the Israelis should unleash shock and awe on the Palestinians as a whole–not just Hamas– and get out of Gaza as quickly as possible. That will stop the bleeding.

What Trump doesn’t understand, of course, is that Gaza is not Afghanistan. The Israelis don’t have the option of just withdrawing and washing their hands of the war, because the enemy is next door. Furthermore, the way they fight the war should be dictated by their ultimate political objectives, which have yet to be defined. Bouncing the rubble is not a viable approach to a complex problem with vast implications for Israel’s future.

Life in the time of Trump.

Mike Cohen’s on the stand.

The Daniels payment was exposed

And things got out of hand.

Trump demanded loyalty

But gave none in return.

Now he’s the one who’s in the dock.

I guess he’ll never learn.

As I’ve noted many times before, the Trump 1.0 foreign policy contained two tracks; the man on golf cart offended allies, embraced dictators, and changed positions on a dime, while the State Department conducted business as usual and pretended there was no conflict. A column written by a conservative Trump fanboy in the NYT predicts more of the same for Trump 2.0, with terrific results; after all, Nixon used the madman tactic, and it worked well for him. Is the writer correct?

No, for multiple reasons. First of all, we cannot effectively contain Russia and China without allies; being capricious and offensive to them will drive them away instead of bending them to our will. Second, it is quite clear that some of the establishment victories in the first Trump term were due, not to the deliberate workings of a good cop, bad cop system, but to obstruction on the part of the bureaucracy. That is unlikely to occur the next time around. Finally, unpredictability can lead to misunderstanding, which can lead to disaster. Just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand about that.

It sounds like a broken record; even when faced with the partial withdrawal of American support, the Israeli government has neither provided a viable plan for the protection of civilians nor linked the upcoming campaign to any reasonable long-term political objectives. That repeated failure defies common sense. What is going on here?

Two things. Bibi doesn’t want to talk about the future because it divides the cabinet; better to just fight an endless war than to risk losing power. The lack of interest in protecting civilians reflects the state of Israeli public opinion. The Israelis are traumatized. They only feel their own pain and vulnerability. They want Hamas finished, and they have little interest in protecting Palestinian women and children if they are in the way.

I’m guessing the state of public opinion is probably due in part to the images the Israelis are seeing on TV, which most likely do not include any of the pictures of wretchedness that appear on our screens every night. The lack of interest in the future and the fate of civilians is understandable, but it is a mistake. At the present rate, Gaza will be nothing but a rubble pile six months from now, the Israeli public will be tired of paying for the war, Hamas will still be there, and the rest of the world will be appalled.

Imagine that Native Americans have developed a weapon that can be used to kill millions of the descendants of those who stole their land. They demand the return of Manhattan in exchange for the promise not to use the weapon. The Great Spirit, they say, commanded them to take this action to revive their culture. All of the current residents of Manhattan are given just a few hours to grab their things and evacuate. How do you think they would feel about that?

Alternatively, imagine that Pope Francis has announced that he is expanding his rule to include all of the property that was within the boundaries of the Papal States in 1500. This land will now serve as a refuge for conservative Catholics all over the world who feel endangered by secular culture in their home countries. Anyone within the expanded Papal States who doesn’t agree with theocratic rule will lose his land to the refugees. How well do you think that would go over?

The point, obviously, is that the Arabs who lost their land after 1948 have a perfectly valid case, too. The objective should be to try to balance the legitimate claims of both sides to the dispute. The two-state solution is the best way to do that, if it is still possible to create a viable Palestinian state at this time. If it isn’t, most of the blame for that falls on Bibi and the settlers for deliberately creating irreversible facts on the ground without the approval of the Palestinians or the rest of the world.

Mark Penn, who has argued that Democrats need to move to the center to win swing votes about as long as I have been alive, says that Biden has made the mistake of falling in with the radical left. Their threats to stay home or vote for a third party are a bluff, he says; fear of Trump will ultimately fire them up, and they have nowhere else to go. Change course immediately, appeal to the Haley voters, or face defeat in November!

The problem with this line of recycled reasoning is that Biden is already doing precisely what he asks. Consider the following:

1. GAZA: Penn says Biden should give the Israelis the weapons to finish the job, while insisting that civilians be protected to the maximum extent possible. That is exactly what he is doing.
2. INFLATION: Penn says Biden should be doing more to reduce inflation. Most of that is beyond Biden’s power, but the campaign is doing its best to emphasize efforts to combat shrinkflation and bring down drug prices.
3. THE BORDER: Penn wants a legislative effort to secure the border. Biden supported bipartisan legislation to do exactly that which was torpedoed by Trump and House Republicans.
4. CRIME: Biden isn’t Batman, and crime is going down.

What else, exactly, is the man supposed to do?

Trump is apparently arguing on the stump that our inflation rates are comparable to those of the Weimar Republic in 1923. That’s laughably stupid, of course, but let’s take the analogy to Weimar a step further.

If Trump wins the election and puts an end to Weimar America, what does that make him? What was that guy’s name again? Didn’t he have a funny little mustache?