Cromwell

At the same time that Trump is asserting that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for criminal acts while in office, he is threatening to put Joe Biden and members of his family in jail on the campaign trail. How do we reconcile these two ideas?

You could argue, of course, that absolute immunity applies to actions taken by the president while in office, but not the VP. That would suggest that the president is sovereign–an American king–while the VP is not. Since the office of VP is also referenced specifically in the Constitution, it is difficult to make a persuasive argument out of that.

If Trump is right, Biden couldn’t be prosecuted for attempting a coup if he loses the election unless he is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. He couldn’t even be prosecuted if he orders the military to shoot . . . Donald Trump! Does Trump really mean that? Of course not!

In reality, what Trump is actually saying is that the law doesn’t apply to him. Immunity is purely personal. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US, Churchill met with President J.D. Vance to discuss grand strategy. As you would expect, Churchill wanted to make victory over the Nazis the initial objective, with the campaign against the Japanese having a lower priority. Vance, however, was having none of it.

Vance made it clear that America would be putting all of its resources into winning the Pacific war and protecting the border. America, he said, simply didn’t have the money or the manpower to fight a two-front war. Hitler was a European problem, and should be dealt with by Europeans.

When Churchill noted that Vance’s approach would lead to a Europe dominated either by Hitler or Stalin–more likely, the latter–Vance was unconcerned. He opined that Stalin wasn’t so bad. After all, he had been fighting wokeness in the USSR for decades.

Ross Douthat wants desperately for Americans to have more children. The fate of our very civilization depends on it, in his view.

But Douthat believes that a fertilized egg is a human being, so he has to agree with the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision which says exactly that. IVF clinics in Alabama are shutting down as a result. Alabama women who need medical assistance in getting pregnant will have to give up on the dream or move out of the state.

Sweet home Alabama, indeed. It’s a serious dilemma for the right, to say nothing of a political liability.

There are three distinct views of Putin within the GOP. They are as follows:

1. Putin is awesome! He’s the man! He was fighting wokeness throughout the world when it wasn’t cool! We need someone like him to take out the garbage in our country and start over again! PROPONENTS OF THIS VIEW: Trump; Carlson; Ramaswamy.
2. Putin is a thug, to be sure, but his country just isn’t that dangerous. Russia is struggling to defeat Ukraine; it would be no match for NATO. Europe should take over this problem and let America use its limited resources to deal with the real existential threats–China and the border. PROPONENTS OF THIS VIEW: J.D. Vance.
3. Letting Putin work his will in Ukraine will just encourage him to try the same thing with the Baltic states and Poland. Dictators are never satisfied. Didn’t we learn anything from Hitler? PROPONENTS OF THIS VIEW: Nikki Haley; Mitch McConnell.

My best guess is that the third group is still the largest within the GOP, but is not a majority. In any event, some prominent Republicans talk tough against Putin, but enable him in practice. Lindsey Graham, for example, sounds like a member of the third cohort, but votes with the second.

During the 1860 campaign, Donald Trump refused to say where he stood on the slavery issue. He simply insisted that he would reveal a plan that would be really great, and that everyone would love, after he was elected.

The voters took him at his word and elected him. What was his plan? Noting that one side viewed slaves as people, and the other as property, he proposed to split the difference. A slave would henceforth be treated as a person from the waist up, but an object from the waist down.

To Trump’s surprise, nobody embraced his proposal, the South seceded, and, well, you know the rest.

The FFs were not Victorians, as Maria Reynolds and Sally Hemings could have told you. Prostitution was common and was understood to be inevitable. There were lots of illegitimate children. Some women practiced rudimentary forms of birth control. It wasn’t ideal, but that was just the way it was, and few people thought it could be changed.

Based on this, you would have to think that the Founders would have been sympathetic to legislation authorizing abortion under some circumstances. But if you had asked them if the Constitution prohibited any legislative consideration of the issue, they would have snorted in derision. The Constitution was about the distribution of power, not the poisoned fruit of sin. Abortion never would have entered the minds of the FFs as they were arguing and drafting in 1787.

What would a perfect Biden alternative look like? Here’s the wish list:

1. A man takes the culture war issue out of play, but the right woman would be OK, too. For purposes of this list, “he” consequently includes “she.”
2. He would be young, energetic, and charismatic.
3. He can appeal to older voters on substance and younger ones on style.
4. He comes from the Midwest or a purple state.
5. He has no ties to the Biden Administration and therefore cannot be blamed for its perceived failures.
6. He has experience running a national campaign.

This candidate does not currently exist in the flesh. He never does. Biden himself isn’t even close, which is why the base doesn’t love him, even though he did his best to be FDR for the 21st century in the first two years of his term.

In my opinion, the three alternatives that come the closest to the ideal are Klobuchar, Whitmer, and Booker. In the highly unlikely event that we actually do have an open convention, root for one of them to win.

Given the prevailing views about the purpose of government, its very limited resources, and the availability of cheap land, it is hardly surprising that nothing like a welfare state existed in America in 1787. If you needed help, you looked to churches and private charities for it. In light of that, how would the FFs view today’s federal safety net?

The FFs also didn’t live in a world of periodic financial crises, large cities, and a working class subject to occasional spasms of mass unemployment, or one with universal suffrage. This is just a guess, but I think even Hamilton, who worked himself up from nothing, would have accepted the concept of a welfare state (probably a pretty stingy one) as a guarantee of political stability in a democratic state. After all, Bismarck wasn’t exactly a fan of democracy, either.

What about the governors? They have relevant executive experience, and they can’t be credibly tied to Biden. Would they be considered seriously by the convention?

The two obvious options are Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer. The former is something of a national figure, is more moderate than one might think at first glance, and gives every indication of wanting the job. The latter faced down some really extreme MAGA forces in a very important swing state that could decide the election. She has a reasonable case, too.

But neither has ever run a national race. Neither has been subject to the kind of media scrutiny that comes with a presidential campaign. Newsom has the additional disadvantage of governing a state with image issues in much of America. While both of them are more energetic and charismatic than Biden, is either of them really an improvement?

The economy of 1787 bore no resemblance to the one we had today. A large majority of Americans were small farmers; there were workshops, but no factories; the “working class” consisted largely of apprentices, not laborers; there were no multi-state corporations; and most of the goods that Americans consumed were produced within a few miles of their residence, with the remainder being imported. Large landowners possessed a disproportionate amount of influence, but only in their neighborhoods. There was no need for antitrust law.

What would the FFs say about antitrust under today’s conditions? Hamilton was essentially an 18th century Whig, so you can imagine him supporting big business, subject to reasonable regulation by the state. Jefferson and his followers envisioned an America run by yeomen farmers and small businessmen. They opposed governmental intervention in the economy in their day, but under today’s very different conditions, you have to think they would be strong champions of the use of antitrust law against huge corporations, because the government is responsible to the voting public, while the corporations answer primarily to their wealthy owners.

Notwithstanding what Thomas and Scalia might tell you, here are two important facts about gun ownership in the late 18th century:

1. Individual gun ownership was uncommon, because guns were not mass produced, and were expensive. Guns did not proliferate in America until after the Civil War.
2. There was a very good reason the Second Amendment references the militia; the Anti-Federalists were worried that a standing army in the hands of a more powerful central government would be an instrument of tyranny. Their theory was that the Revolution had been won by individual state militias, not Washington and the Continental Army. The Second Amendment was primarily an attempt to reassure them on that point, not a statement about the right of self-defense.

In light of that, do you really think any of the FFs would support the private ownership of AR-15s? I suspect not.

Harris polls even worse than Biden. As I noted in my last post, she also makes it possible for Trump to run a campaign based on identity, which is right up his alley. Are there better alternatives for the open convention?

In this post, I will focus on the Washington options, which are as follows:

1. PETE BUTTIGIEG: On the plus side, he is young, bright, and reasonably dynamic, and he has experience running a national campaign. On the negative side, he is a gay technocrat and a controversial member of the Biden Administration. The contrast with Trump could hardly be more striking, and some elements of the left would find his candidacy inspiring, but I don’t see him as a realistic alternative.
2. ELIZABETH WARREN AND BERNIE SANDERS: Too old and too far left. It would make no sense to dump an elderly moderate in favor of an almost equally elderly lefty.
3. AMY KLOBUCHAR: She has experience running a national campaign, she isn’t tied to Biden, she is moderate enough for a general election, and she comes from the Midwest, which is a decided plus. Any female nominee will present Trump with identity politics opportunities, but that could boomerang on him with moderate voters. She would be a reasonable choice, but could she set a convention on fire? I doubt it.
4. CORY BOOKER: An experienced moderate, similar to Klobuchar, but black instead of female and tied to New Jersey. He’s a slightly less plausible choice.

I think Klobuchar would be the best of this lot, but what about the governors? I will address them tomorrow.

Ezra Klein is the latest NYT commentator calling for an open convention. With Biden’s polling numbers in the dumps, he reasons, what do the Democrats have to lose?

It would be very hard, in addition to being very divisive, for the Democrats to choose someone else. The nominee would have to run a campaign designed by Biden, largely with people chosen by Biden, with money raised for Biden, without any meaningful time for preparation. In addition, there is a very good chance the nominee would be without any experience running a national campaign. How is that going to work?

Nevertheless, over the next few days, I will examine the possible alternatives. The most obvious of these, of course, is Harris. Biden would feel obligated to provide her with an endorsement of sorts. She has been fully vetted and has experience running a national campaign. Ideologically, she would be acceptable to virtually everyone in the party. Finally, her reputation as being a poor campaigner is mostly unmerited; like many of the 2020 Democrats, she had trouble finding room on the spectrum between Biden and Sanders. That would not be an issue running against Trump.

But Harris comes with two huge disadvantages. First, as Biden’s VP, she can credibly be attacked for any perceived shortcomings in his administration. Second, she is Trump’s dream opponent, because she lets the man on golf cart lean into his favorite tactic–identity politics. Black? Check. Female? Check. From California, the land of fruits and nuts? Check. By the end of the campaign, Trump will have half the country convinced that Harris is a Black Panther.

I don’t think America is ready for that yet. What are the other options? I will discuss them in subsequent posts.

Jefferson was kind of the Mao of his day; he thought knowledge was expanding so fast that each generation should redo the Constitution. He would have laughed at originalism, but he was an extremist on the subject. What about the others?

The Constitution was viewed, even by its strongest defenders, as a series of grubby compromises that only represented an incremental improvement over the status quo. None of the Founding Fathers got anything like what he really wanted in the process. And then, of course, there was the slavery issue.

Is it safe, therefore, to assume that the FFs would be astonished to hear that an America which looks nothing like the one they knew considers itself to be bound by their values on issues such as business regulations and guns? Yes, it is.

The cure for unmoored religious fanaticism has always been the evidence before your eyes. If you can’t trust that anymore, you may be more inclined to go along with someone’s narrative, no matter how facially absurd it might be.

Does that ring any bells for you?