Cromwell

As I’ve noted several times before, it is in the best interests of neither the US nor Iran to widen the war. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen if one or more of Iran’s proxies gets out of control. If you don’t believe me, just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Biden–quite correctly–has concluded that American credibility requires us to retaliate firmly for the deaths of three soldiers at a base in Jordan. The trick is to find targets that will send the message and put an end to further such attacks without creating further danger of escalation.

Some right-wing American politicians predictably want us to strike directly at Iran. There is a case for doing so, but the risks of escalation would increase dramatically. I suspect Biden will play it safe and limit the retaliation to the proxies.

Back in the day–that is, back when people said “Back in the day”–the PBP faction was in charge of the Republican Party, and the Reactionaries had to settle for crumbs. The PBP desire for tax cuts and deregulation was the featured policy of the GOP; social conservatives got a few judges and some kind words, but little else in return.

Times have changed. The Reactionaries are in charge, because that’s where the votes are. Today, the bargain is different; the PBPs are being told to take their tax cuts, make big profits, donate money, and shut up. And most of them will, even if it costs them customers and valued employees.

Dr. Jill is discussing the upcoming campaign with Joe at the White House.

JILL: Well, it’s all over but the shouting. Trump will be the Republican nominee.

JOE: Just as I predicted.

JILL: I’ll give you credit for that. I thought DeSantis would make it closer than he did.

JOE: Everyone running against Trump has to figure out how to beat him without alienating the base. Nobody has succeeded as of today.

JILL: So we need to start planning the campaign against Trump in earnest.

JOE: Let’s start with the issues that Trump will use against me. You can play Trump. We’ll deal with our wedge issues against him on another day.

JILL: OK. Inflation. It’s raging out of control. We didn’t have inflation in my day. Vote for me and inflation will disappear.

JOE: Inflation was a worldwide phenomenon caused by the pandemic and supply chain issues. It’s basically back to normal now. And Trump doesn’t have a plan to deal with what’s left. His tariff plan is a tax increase on average Americans that will raise prices and bring inflation back for the benefit of rich stockholders who live all over the world–not just in America.

JILL: The supply chain thing is true, but it sounds like whining. I like the part about the tariffs. It’s punchy.

JOE: Next issue.

JILL: China. You’re weak on China. I’m much tougher. The Chinese won’t dare to mess with me.

JOE: Based on what? All you care about is the trade deficit. You made a deal that cost our farmers and taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and the Chinese basically ignored it. I created a loose coalition to deter Chinese misbehavior and cut off their high tech imports. For your part, you sucked up to Xi Jinping all the time and ignored Chinese human rights violations. I have plenty of video to prove it.

JILL: The video will help. That’s the short and punchy thing that will help us win.

JOE: What’s next?

JILL: The border. It’s a disaster. We’re being overrun by illegals. We barely have a country anymore.

JOE: So says the guy who promised to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. Now he’s tanking a bipartisan deal that would actually do some good here.

JILL: He’s handing you a great issue by opposing the bill. Next, there’s crime. It’s out of control. Only I can fix the problem by being tough.

JOE: Crime actually started increasing on your watch in 2020. And we haven’t had any of those terrible riots you complain about during my presidency. They all happened during yours.

JILL: Excellent! The reality here is that the president has no control over crime, but the public doesn’t accept that. You need an effective counter rather than an excuse. The rising crime and riot approach is a good one.

JOE: Anything else?

JILL: Those are the biggies. We’ll work on our issues against him later.

There are lots of ways to run a presidential campaign. William McKinley ran his 1896 campaign from his front porch. Biden’s 2020 campaign rarely left his basement. Plenty of incumbents have stayed in the Rose Garden. What kind of campaign is Trump running in 2024?

A courtroom campaign, of course. Trump has concluded that his martyrdom narrative works best if he shows up at his hearings, whether he is legally required to do so or not. The base obviously loves it, and it has clearly solidified his support with the GOP electorate during the primaries. But will it work in a general election?

Most Americans–the reactionary base excluded– want to hear what the presidential candidates plan to do to help them over the next four years. The martyrdom narrative doesn’t help with that. In addition, any discussion about Trump’s criminal activities isn’t going to win over swing voters. The courtroom campaign is not a viable option for November.

Klein thinks opinions on Gaza within the Democratic Party are largely dictated by historical memory. For people of Biden’s age, Israel is the plucky democracy that survived against great odds in 1948 and 1967; for Gen Xers, Israel tried to make peace, but was frustrated by myopic Palestinian leaders; but for Gen Zers, Israel is the Middle East equivalent of the guy who put his knee on George Floyd’s neck. During their lifetimes, Israel has always been the overwhelmingly predominant military power in the area; Bibi has used that power purely to oppress Palestinians and pull America’s chain. Is Klein correct?

Yes, but part of the problem here is that the young progressives don’t see the big picture. Biden’s objective is to use the current war to create a better political environment for everyone except the extremists in the Middle East. He is doing his best to take advantage of that opportunity, even if it means a degree of rejection and frustration in the short run. Just because the initiative hasn’t borne fruit yet doesn’t mean it won’t in the end.

From the perspective of the average GOP senator, it makes perfect sense to make a deal on the border and Ukraine aid. He doesn’t want Putin to win in Ukraine; his business constituents fear what Trump will do on the immigration issue; and he knows if Trump wins, the extremists will insist on raw populist legislation that will run afoul of the filibuster. Nothing will get done. The time to make a genuinely constructive deal, therefore, is now.

But from the perspective of the average GOP House member, things are quite different. His seat is safe, except for potential attacks from the right. He’s focused on winning the presidency. He knows the last thing Trump wants before the election is some sort of bipartisan deal that looks like a win for Biden and takes the teeth out of the border issue, which, more than anything, is Trump’s brand. He doesn’t want a negotiated legislative solution; he wants Trump to take unilateral, and probably illegal, actions to address the problem once and for all. For now, the problem, for him, is the point.

Mike Johnson needs to build credibility with the extremists in order to continue to make deals on the budget with Democrats, so he will go along with them on this issue. As a result, the deal won’t happen.

To the extent that DeSantis tried attacking Trump at all, it was from the right on social issues. That didn’t go well. Haley is attacking Trump from the right on fiscal issues and foreign policy; that isn’t faring too well, either. But what would have happened if a genuine populist–both on social and economic issues–had challenged the man on golf cart? Would the result have been different?

Probably not, because the GOP rich men north of Richmond would have done everything in their power to tank this hypothetical candidate. They like their populism on the bogus side, and totally oriented towards social issues. Nevertheless, it would have been a lot more interesting than the race we actually had.

Biden keeps pushing a Palestinian state on Bibi, and Bibi keeps pushing back. It appears that Biden is getting played, and our supposed insider influence has come to nothing. The left is outraged. It’s easy to see why.

But I think Biden is playing a longer game here. The audience for his diplomacy isn’t Bibi; it’s the Israeli public and the rest of the war cabinet, which is openly split on what happens next in Gaza. Bibi is wildly unpopular, and an election isn’t far away. Can he really run on a platform of saying no to the rest of the world and footing the entire bill for the occupation of Gaza and still win? I have my doubts.

Based on the limited available data, reasonable people can disagree as to whether social media, on balance, are bad for kids. It probably depends on the individual circumstances. The logical response, then, is to leave the issue to their parents.

The Florida GOP doesn’t agree. It is pursuing a bill that would ban minors from setting up social media accounts, regardless of their parents’ wishes.

This stacks up with the treatment of transgender children as another example of GOP hypocrisy on “parents’ rights”. The reality is that the GOP only believes in “parents’ rights” when the parents in question are pushing a reactionary agenda.

It’s an ideological issue masquerading as an authority and process question.

Bret Stephens looks at the incredibly extensive (and expensive) network of Hamas tunnels under residential areas and concludes that the terror group is responsible for every single death in Gaza. Is he right?

No, because his analysis ignores the international law principle of proportionality. If Israel is entitled to kill as many Palestinian civilians as necessary in order to kill a single Hamas fighter, it has a green light to commit genocide.

Israel is not, in reality, committing genocide in Gaza, but this kind of reasoning doesn’t help its cause. Yes, the Israelis are acting in self-defense, and yes, giving Hamas fighters a free pass in order to spare civilians is a reward of sorts for disgusting and irresponsible behavior. But that doesn’t mean the Israelis have a blank check to do anything they want in Gaza. As Biden correctly continues to tell them, they need to do everything in their power to separate civilians from fighters and kill only the latter.

The first stage of the war met the international standard. After that, I have my doubts.

The leadership of CNN knows Trump is good for business, but bad for the country. They are apparently struggling with the issue of whether to cover the man on golf cart’s speeches, presumably because they don’t want to provide a platform for his lies. Is this a good idea?

Ignoring Trump is a mistake at all possible levels. Trump’s current edge in the polls is due largely to his refusal to face hostile questioning at the debates. As a result, the race is currently a referendum on Biden–a battle that Trump is likely to win.

America needs to see Trump at his most demented in order to remember what life was like in 2020. That means giving him lots of coverage and letting him speak for himself. If he does, he will shoot himself in the foot with everyone but the base. He can’t help it; it’s who he is.

We didn’t have to be here. If Mitch McConnell had worked to get a decision against Trump in the second impeachment trial, the GOP nomination would still be up for grabs. Now Mitch is going to have to support a man he absolutely despises, knowing that if Trump wins in November, his job and his legacy will be in jeopardy. Talk about a self-inflicted wound!

This is all because Mitch thought Trump was finished; he could avoid alienating the base by acquitting the man on golf cart without running any risks to the party and himself. Bad call, buddy.

It’s official now–the GOP is the MAGA Party. This was Haley’s best chance, but she couldn’t get it done. Trump will be the nominee.

But I don’t expect Haley to give up, for two reasons. First, as I explained before, she has nothing to lose by continuing to irritate the base, since they will never embrace her under any circumstances. Second, there is a theoretical possibility that the Supreme Court could find that Trump is disqualified to hold office as an insurrectionist. What do the Republicans do then? They need a Plan B until the Court rules, just in case.

It is becoming increasingly clear that tens of millions of Americans look back longingly at the Trump economy of 2019. The events of 2020 have been somehow erased from their brains. It is incumbent on Biden and his friends to jog their memories.

But simply attracting attention to Trump’s unsavory past isn’t enough; he needs to be asked about his vision for the future, and how he plans to get there. How, exactly, does he think he can bring back 2019? Won’t massive tariffs cause inflation? Where will we find the workforce to staff all of the new manufacturing plants he wants to see, given the current unemployment rate, particularly in light of his plan to deport millions of workers? How can we afford another tax cut, given the current deficit? Why does it make sense to invest in dying rather than growing industries? And so on.

EU markets are about to be flooded by relatively cheap Chinese EVs, says The Economist. And a good thing, too; they will help fight climate change and inflation. If domestic car companies are damaged by the exports, so what? History tells us they’ll adjust. If the Chinese want to pay Europeans through extensive subsidies to drive their cars, God bless them.

The argument makes a certain amount of sense, even if it is politically tone deaf. The bottom line, however, is that you can make the same arguments about the American efforts to promote the domestic production of green products, but The Economist thinks those are an appalling example of protectionism.

I sense a double standard here. The Chinese are just being Chinese, so we don’t expect much from them, but the Americans have an obligation to stand up for free trade even when no one else will do so due to the toxic politics.