Cromwell

According to David French, the left has finally fled Sewer, which has turned into a extreme right-wing playpen. Even more than Fox News, it has become the right’s chosen source of (mis)information.

The problem for Musk is that the kind of people who now populate Sewer would rather eat ground glass than buy an electric car. He is busy alienating existing and potential Tesla customers in favor of a constituency that hates his primary product.

Musk thinks he’s above the rules. Unfortunately for him, the rules of logic still apply, and they’re going to cost him a lot of money.

The left wants a cease-fire in Gaza. One assumes they also want the Israelis to withdraw. Then what? Hamas will still be in charge of the wreckage. It has no interest in improving the lives of the residents; it only wants to destroy Israel. How do we get from a stinking pile of rubble and a starving populace under the control of a revolutionary organization to a lasting peace and a real Palestinian state? You can’t get from Point A to Point B.

The right just wants the Israelis to bounce the rubble in Gaza. How does that enable us to midwife an alliance between Israel and the Saudis? How does it help us rally the world against Putin and China? All it does is alienate world opinion and make us look like hypocrites when we advocate for universal human rights.

Here’s what I would say about foreign policy:

1. UKRAINE: Putin is a bloody dictator who invaded a small democracy, killed tens of thousands of people, and destroyed everything in his path for no better reason than he just wanted it under his control. Some members of Congress think if we appease him, he’ll stop with Ukraine, but history tells us otherwise. Some members of Congress think Ukraine is a European problem, and we should focus solely on China, but Europe doesn’t have the resources in the short run to stop Putin, and the best way to deter potential Chinese aggression in Asia is to prove we have the will and the means to stop their ally without, of course, risking World War III. If those members of Congress had been alive after Pearl Harbor, they would have told the American public we didn’t have the ability to fight both Hitler and the Japanese at the same time. Guess how that would have turned out!
2. CHINA: We have mobilized our friends in Asia to send a message to the Chinese that aggression will not be accepted. That said, we need to work with the Chinese on issues such as North Korea and climate change, and diversifying supply chains will take time, so we need to operate with some degree of nuance. Slapping huge tariffs on the Chinese will only increase inflation at home. Do we really want that?
3. GAZA: Israel had every right to defend itself against Hamas. Hamas is a revolutionary organization, not a real government, and has refused to be a partner for peace in the Middle East. As such, any hope for real progress on the Palestinian issue is conditioned on its destruction, and demanding a cease-fire with Hamas still in control of parts of Gaza is counterproductive. But providing unqualified support for any Israeli action, regardless of how brutal and unfocused, in Gaza is also a mistake; how does turning Gaza into rubble and killing tens of thousands of civilians make the creation of a Palestinian state, and an alliance between moderate Arabs and Israel, more likely? How does alienating public opinion around the world by slaughtering Palestinian civilians help us deal with our other foreign policy challenges? A middle course, with the objective of real change in the Middle East, is what is required here.
4. IRAN: Some members of Congress want us to strike directly at Iran and start a new war in the Middle East. Given our history, do we really want another war there? And does it make sense to rally the citizens of Iran around the government at a time when its legitimacy is in question, and regime change is around the corner? We will continue to deter Iran and its proxies, but in a way that is proportionate to any attacks on our forces so as to avoid a wider conflict.

Biden’s most important task in the SOTU is to prove to the public that he is physically and mentally fit to do the job for another four years. I can’t help him with that, but here’s some advice on what to say on domestic issues:

1. A BLAST FROM THE PAST: America has forgotten what life was like when Biden took office. Unemployment had soared; thousands of people were dying from the virus every day; and the government’s response to the challenge was chaotic at best. And, of course, there was January 6. Today, unemployment is very low and the pandemic is over. Life is good, comparatively speaking.
2. INFLATION: Inflation was a worldwide problem caused by side effects of the pandemic. Just as it did after the two world wars, it has subsided. It is under control again. It won’t be, however, if we impose new tariffs on imported goods; that’s a big tax increase, by the way.
3. ABORTION: Due to the decision in Dobbs, abortion rights are under threat in the entire country–even in states that have put them in their constitutions. A national ban is a real possibility. Roe should be codified at the federal level immediately.
4. CLIMATE CHANGE: It is still an existential threat. The huge fire in Texas is evidence of that. It comes for people in red as well as blue states. We made significant progress by passing the IRA, but more needs to be done. Let’s keep working on it.
5. THE BORDER: The problems at the border are the result of inadequate resources and legislation that doesn’t address some of the issues with regard to asylum. The bipartisan Senate bill was a big step forward. Let’s finish the job.

I realized for the first time yesterday that the protagonist in this song bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Donald Trump. Listen to it yourself–you’ll see what I mean.

I’m pretty sure Pete Townshend never dreamed that he was describing a future POTUS when he was writing this song. What does he think when he plays it now?

McConnell knew it was time to go; his health was visibly declining, and he was starting to lose control of his MAGA members. His timing was impeccable; without the burden of speaking for his entire caucus, he is now free to advocate for Ukraine with fewer limits. But what happens when he goes? Is the Senate doomed to become yet another version of the House?

Not exactly. The combination of tradition and longer terms (leading to slower turnover) will prevent radical change in the short run. In addition, because senators represent entire states, there are no constituencies that are entirely bright red and rural. There is no doubt, however, that the MAGA influence will increase after the election unless the Democrats defy the odds and win a blowout victory. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

The real question is whether the filibuster survives without McConnell in the leadership if Trump wins and the GOP has a majority in the Senate. There will be enormous pressure to get rid of it to facilitate a national abortion ban. Collins and Murkowski will not vote for that, however. The filibuster will stay unless the GOP winds up with at least 52 Senate seats after November, which is possible, but pretty unlikely.

There was no good reason for the Supreme Court to hear Trump’s immunity issue. The legal principle is clear; the D.C. Circuit’s opinion is well-written; all four judges who considered the case reached the same conclusion; and the public interest is best served by a speedy decision on the merits of the case. And yet, the Court decided to take jurisdiction. Why?

By cooperating with Trump’s stall ball tactics, the Court is effectively supporting his campaign. I wish I could say otherwise, but I can’t. There is no other good explanation for this transparently bad decision.

The charges are legally frivolous. The GOP leaders in both the House and the Senate have to know that. And yet, they are going forward. What’s the point?

Several reasons. First of all, the MAGA cohort within the House has always been more interested in posturing for Fox News and the base back home than in getting actual results. Second, that same cohort wants to establish that it controls the Republican Party; moderate members in swing districts are obligated to follow their will. Third, the PBPs who voted for impeachment while presumably knowing the absurdity of the allegations fear upsetting the base and facing a primary more than losing a general election.

It’s yet another embarrassment for the GOP. While some of the Republican senators will use the opportunity to posture about border control, most of them will be happy to see the charges disappear as quickly as possible.

Nikki Haley says Trump is an agent of chaos. She thinks he’s good at breaking things, but not at building anything new. She makes him sound more like Mao than Burke. Is she right?

Of course she is! Trump is the very opposite of a conservative; he’s a punk rocker in politics. That’s why genuine conservatives will be looking for a different candidate in November. Their votes may very well be decisive in the election.

Paul Krugman used to say that Democrats were ambivalent about immigration, while the GOP was schizophrenic. What he meant by that was that virtually all Democrats were torn between showing compassion for unauthorized immigrants and maintaining political and financial support for the welfare state, while Republicans were split between businessmen, who strongly supported high levels of immigration, and reactionaries, who thought unauthorized immigrants were the source of most of America’s evils. Is this still true?

No– thanks largely to Trump and Abbott, the situation has flip-flopped. On the GOP side, the reactionaries are now firmly in charge, and business interests have been told to shut up; whatever influence they have is currently exercised behind closed doors. The Democrats are now split between passionate advocates of open borders for humanitarian reasons and centrists who worry about the costs–both financial and political–of accommodating huge numbers of immigrants in blue states. They are now the schizophrenic side.

It is a change that bodes ill for the blue team.

On the matter of Joe’s advanced age.

The topic just fills me with rage.

Sure, he’s frail and he’s slow

But he’s sane, as you know,

While Trump’s ego’s at terminal stage.

Catholic reactionaries believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, so they oppose IVF. Protestant reactionaries, on the other hand, are less dogmatic on the issue, and they smell political trouble. As a result, Trump, and even GOP members of the Alabama Legislature, want to change the law to protect IVF.

This is a perfect example of a point I made years ago; Protestant and Catholic reactionaries are not natural allies. They are united in their opposition to the mostly secular status quo, but they don’t really agree on how it should be replaced. Creating a theocracy in America would be harder than they think.

Tim Wu makes the argument in today’s NYT that leaving content moderation in semi-public spaces such as Facebook and X to billionaires who answer to hardly anyone presents a danger to the public. He’s right; the situation is clearly suboptimal. But the alternative–letting Trump, Abbott, and DeSantis control content on the internet–is far worse. The right has guns and an intense desire to stifle opposing viewpoints; the billionaires don’t.

In a better world (it wouldn’t even have to be ideal), there would be something like a consensus on what speech is totally unacceptable and what isn’t, so it would be safe to let the government set the rules. We don’t have that in America today, so leaving content moderation to Musk and Zuckerberg is the best we can do.

David French correctly notes that American Christians are under no obligation whatsoever to check their beliefs at the door when it comes to politics. He draws a distinction, however, between Christians and Christian nationalists, who, according to him, seek primacy in all elements of American society. Is he right, and is there more to the story?

Yes on both counts. Christian nationalism is based on the belief that America was settled, and made great, by white European Christians in accordance with God’s plan. The Founding Fathers, in this story, were devout Christians, not deists. Both scripture and the successes of the past thus give Christians an entitlement to rule America regardless of the transient will of the majority of the voters. Christian nationalists, unlike normal Christians, think they have the right to ignore the rules of liberal democracy, and to seize power by any means necessary if their position is threatened.

Two observations are pertinent here. First, “Christian nationalism” is frequently, and correctly, called “white Christian nationalism” because the tie to the European colonization of America inevitably makes the group racist. Second, the belief that a particular group of people is entitled to rule, regardless of whether it represents a majority or not, is common to both Christian nationalists and the Communist Party. In the latter case, the belief is based on the CP’s supposedly superior understanding of the laws of history (i.e., dialectical materialism); in the former, it is based on scripture and a view of American history which disregards the role of non-Christians (including, in reality, most of the FFs) in making the country what it is today.

Ironically, the CCP in practice bases its right to rule less on Marxism and more on the party’s success in expelling foreigners and making China great again. Xi consequently has more in common with white Christian nationalists than either side would like to admit.

The Conservatives were crushed in the 1905 election, but Arthur Balfour, their leader, still had a card to play. He could rely on the House of Lords to defeat any bill that he found completely unacceptable regardless of the state of public opinion.

In the end, the strategy didn’t work, because the Liberals turned aristocratic obstruction into a constitutional issue and ultimately emasculated the House of Lords. Substitute McConnell and the filibuster for the House of Lords and you have a lesson for the Republicans in the Senate.