Cromwell

With her inept performance before Congress and her plagiarism issues, Claudine Gay loaded the pistol and handed it to her opponents. It was center-left former supporters who pulled the trigger. But it was the right that made her a target, because, as Christopher Rufo explained, she was the very personification of DEI. She was an affirmative action baby. She lacked “merit.” She had to go.

This is the very Christopher Rufo who, with his reactionary trustee friends at New College, decided to recruit male athletes with low test scores in order to create a more conservative, “balanced” student body.

I guess “merit” and DEI are kind of elastic concepts for the right.

Ron DeSantis is apparently accusing the Democrats of “waving the bloody shirt” over 1/6. What did he mean by that, and is he right?

“Waving the bloody shirt” is an allusion to a campaign tactic used with some success by Republican candidates after the end of the Civil War. It was employed, as you would expect, to challenge the patriotism of Democrats who were lukewarm at best about the war.

DeSantis is implicitly admitting that there is a connection between the 1/6 rioters and the Confederacy. By attacking the use of the “bloody shirt,” he is essentially arguing that the Democrats, like the Republicans after 1876, have a moral obligation to forego protecting democracy and let white reactionaries wreak whatever havoc they like.

In other words, DeSantis is showing his true colors by associating himself with racist Confederates. Yes, in that sense, the allusion is both truthful and appropriate.

A mostly admirable, but uninspiring, elderly president is the victim of economic circumstances over which he had little control. The base had little use for him; it longed for someone who was more charismatic and fed them more red meat. His foreign policy successes were ignored during the campaign. A third-party candidate siphoned votes from him. History treated him kindly, but his contemporaries did not.

Yes, if you’re a Democrat, the historical analogy you should fear is 1992. The essential difference is obvious, however; Biden may resemble George H.W. Bush in some respects, but Trump is no Bill Clinton.

The Court intends to expedite the review, which is clearly appropriate. But if the decision to expedite is based on the public interest, why isn’t a quick resolution of the absolute immunity issue also appropriate? Doesn’t the voting public have a right to know the answer to that question prior to the primaries, as well?

This looks like the Court putting a thumb on the scale.

An NYT column makes the case that the closest analogy to 2024 is 1948; America had just experienced two years of high inflation, which was just starting to subside. Is the analogy appropriate?

Yes. The similarities go beyond inflation, poll numbers, and low unemployment:

1. Both Biden and Truman were uncharismatic Democrats following much more celebrated predecessors;
2. Both of them had third party challengers;
3. Both of them had been successful in creating international coalitions against a formidable enemy; and
4. Both of them had Republicans in Congress to use as a foil.

There are differences, however:

1. Dewey was a risk-averse, eminently respectable liberal Republican, which makes him about as far from Trump as he could get;
2. Biden’s party is far less divided than Truman’s, and the third party challenge is nowhere near as serious;
3. The nation was far less polarized than it is today; and
4. The New Deal and World War II were viewed by virtually everyone as successes for the federal government. The pandemic and the recovery from the resulting recession, not so much.

Like Truman, Biden is viewed as being a hapless, doomed candidate by many. He’s not. Does that mean he is destined to win? I don’t know.

Donald Trump–projecting, as always–insists on the stump that Joe Biden is the real dictator in America. In the meantime, his legal team is arguing that he is absolutely immune from any criminal liability for his behavior while in office. The king can do no wrong–or so they say.

Just think about what that means if you take it seriously. Joe Biden, the supposed dictator, is president, not Trump. He then logically has the unlimited right to use the vast resources of the federal government to remain in power regardless of the state of public opinion. Trump’s candidacy, by his own words, is doomed.

Of course, Trump knows that Biden isn’t really a dictator; that’s why he’s free to make his bogus immunity argument, which will receive short shrift even from a friendly Supreme Court at some point in time.

A large majority of the GOP senators voted against convicting Trump after the second impeachment based on January 6. One of the arguments one frequently heard from them at the time–most notably, from Mitch McConnell–was that Trump was subject to the criminal law for his actions, so the impeachment process was inappropriate.

Today, the GOP, to a man, sees all of the Trump criminal indictments, including those encompassing the unlawful effort to overturn the election, as an outrageous partisan prosecutorial overreach. Trump is even using his “acquittal” in the impeachment trial as an argument that the prosecution violates the Constitution.

Go figure.

GOP politicians feel strongly about “protecting” children from woke ideas about race and gender they find obnoxious. They have typically framed this as an argument about protecting the rights of conservative parents. Should we take them seriously?

If this were really a process argument about parents’ rights, you would expect the GOP to stand up for parents who want their trans children to have appropriate medical care. They don’t; in that case, parents have no rights. The same thing would be true about parents in bright blue cities who want their children to be “protected” from books they would view as racist or sexist. This is really an argument about using the state to enforce traditional values; parents are just a means to an end.

Biden gets plenty of stick from both sides on several issues. Who’s right here? Let’s look at the record:

1. INFLATION: RIGHT: Biden’s spending caused the inflation. Cutting spending will solve it. LEFT: Biden’s the president, right? He should have done something to make inflation go away! People are suffering, and the economy sucks! We don’t know what should be done, but the president should always have the answers. THE TRUTH: Democratic spending was a small, but meaningful, component of American inflation, which was primarily caused by dislocations resulting from the pandemic and was a worldwide phenomenon. The additional spending, which is now over, also fueled a recovery that is the envy of the world, and temporarily expanded the welfare state to the benefit of American workers. Today, the dislocations are over, and inflation has more or less returned to normal.
2. GAZA: RIGHT: Bounce the rubble! Biden should forget about protecting Palestinian civilians and give unqualified support to Israel. LEFT: From the river to the sea! We need a cease-fire immediately to protect the Palestinians! The Israelis are imperialist occupiers! THE TRUTH: A cease-fire would represent an unwarranted victory for Hamas terrorism, and would only tempt them to do it again, but bouncing the rubble is cruel and myopic. The objectives are to enable an Israeli victory, to protect civilians to the maximum extent possible, and to demand a political solution fair to both sides after the war.
3. STUDENT DEBT: RIGHT: Forgiving student debt doesn’t solve the affordability problem and unfairly taxes people without college educations for the benefit of the more fortunate. LEFT: Biden’s plan failed, so he sucks. We might just as well have Trump. THE TRUTH: Biden can’t control the Supreme Court. What is he supposed to do?
4. IMMIGATION: RIGHT: America is full. We need to bring back Trump’s policies. Cruelty is necessary to create a deterrent. Biden has opened the border to everyone. LEFT: Biden is just as bad as Trump. We need to open our hearts, minds, and borders to the poor people who just want a safe place to live and work. THE TRUTH: What we need is a system that is humane, orderly, and predictable. The current system was designed and funded by Congress. Only Congress can solve the problems.
5. CLIMATE CHANGE: RIGHT: Climate change is a hoax, or at most, a problem that can’t be solved without destroying the American economy. Focus on energy independence and stop worrying about it. Victims of wildfires and hurricanes are acceptable collateral damage. LEFT: Biden isn’t doing enough to solve the problem. In particular, there is way too much drilling being permitted. THE TRUTH: With a carbon tax off the table as a practical matter, and regulations likely to run afoul of the Supreme Court’s bogus “major questions” doctrine, the only thing left on the menu was subsidies. The IRA was a significant step forward, and the only one available to Biden.

The latest issue of The Atlantic contains about twenty short articles from prominent commentators setting out the likely horrors of a second Trump term. Most of these will be familiar to anyone who reads this blog, so it doesn’t make for essential reading. With one exception.

There is a two-page spread roughly in the middle of it that consists solely of quotes from people who worked for Trump–almost all of them solid conservatives, mind you–advising the world of what a threat the man is to good governance. So you don’t have to take it from me, folks; there it is, all from people that Trump trusted at one time to run the country.

If they aren’t qualified to give us a definitive opinion, who is?

The irrepressible Tressie McMillan Cottom tells us once again in the NYT that the economy, in spite of all of the positive numbers, sucks. This time, she focuses a bit more narrowly on the expiration of the additional pandemic welfare state benefits. She thinks the campaign narrative should take that into account.

Well, of course it should! But instead of driving blue team morale down by whining about how bad things are and implicitly blaming Biden, the objective should be to assign blame where it belongs–on Joe Manchin and the Republicans. They’re the ones who are responsible for Biden’s inability to remake the dollar store economy. If the reactionary bastards can be overcome, happy days can be here again! Get out and vote for the welfare state, young people!

That’s an actual program. It would be inflationary, and higher interest rates may put it beyond our reach. It would involve trade-offs that weren’t necessary during the depths of the pandemic. But it at least would make political sense.

Today’s Israeli Supreme Court decision on the judicial review legislation is a clear and important legal victory for Israel’s blue team. Politically, it is a disaster. It gives Netanyahu the opportunity to attack his opponents for dividing the country at a time of crisis. It means he now has the legal ability to say no to his extremist allies without fearing future repercussions. Finally, it lets him play the victim, a role he devours, just like Trump.

The Israeli red team is going to take this as more evidence that the system is rigged against them. Sound familiar?

Trump is celebrating the new year by discussing border issues with Stephen Miller at Mar-a-Lago.

T: Stephen! Good to see you! Ready to talk illegal immigration?

M: Always, Mr. President. Always.

T: So what’s the plan?

M: There are two things we need to be working on now.

T: Which are?

M: First, we’re going to be relying heavily on the military to carry out our plans, so we have to find someone we can put in charge who can be trusted.

T: Heritage is working on that. What else?

M: We need to have an executive order finding an emergency at the border ready to go on Inauguration Day. The geographic boundary of it will be unlimited, and will specifically include all of the major cities in blue states.

T: Sounds good. Then what?

M: After the inauguration, we put the plan in motion. There are a number of components to it.

T: Including finishing the wall, I assume.

M: Of course!

T: How will we pay for it?

M: If there are any funds in the pipeline for Ukraine, we’ll use them. If not, it will just be part of the defense budget.

T: That could be considered illegal.

M: Who cares? The American people are demanding action. We’re not going to pay any attention to court orders we don’t like. The Supreme Court will probably buy our emergency argument in any event. Then we can use it to shut up everyone we don’t like.

T: How will we get the property for the wall?

M: We’ll start the eminent domain actions immediately.

T: I suppose we’ll be using the military to build our new deportation camps.

M: Right! They’ll be built in the worst places possible, but close to airports. We’ll make sure the immigrants are treated as poorly as possible. We’ll broadcast it to the world. That’s the kind of cruelty we need to create a deterrent.

T: How will the camps be filled?

M: We’ll send the military to the blue cities to conduct raids. Anyone who can’t immediately produce papers will be sent to a camp. We’ll give them a brief hearing, and then put them on a plane.

T: That sounds good. We know there will be demonstrations. We can use the troops to shoot the demonstrators while they’re in the blue cities. That will shut them up.

M: That’s the reason the emergency order won’t just apply to the border areas.

T: Anything else?

M: We’ll start sending troops to Mexico to fight the drug gangs.

T: What if the Mexicans object?

M: We’ll shut down all of the border crossings. That will show them.

T: But all of this will cause major economic problems for us, too. What do we say to our business constituents, and to the consumers?

M: No pain, no gain. Everyone will be better off when the border is secure. We’ll have a real country again.

T: OK. Let’s do it. (Miller leaves)

There are several reports to the effect that the MAGA movement is trying to rehabilitate Richard Nixon. Given the similarities between Trump and Nixon, that makes a certain amount of sense. After all:

1. Both were the subject of impeachment proceedings;
2. Both believed it was OK to use the power of the government against their enemies;
3. Both hated the media;
4. Both were enthusiastic cultural warriors; and
5. Both lived with a chip on their shoulder, although only Nixon had good reason to do so.

But the differences are at least as significant:

1. Nixon felt it was necessary to cover up his corruption and abuses of power. Trump practically flaunts them;
2. Nixon never tried to overturn the result of an election by force;
3. Nixon had Henry Kissinger, while Trump has Michael Flynn. Not exactly the same thing;
4. Nixon actually worked with Democrats in Congress on occasion; and
5. Nixon resigned, but Trump doubled down.

In addition, both had Roger Stone in common, of course. Do the similarities outweigh the differences? You decide.

Many commentators–some of whom even have some legal expertise–have asserted with total confidence that the disqualification language in the Fourteenth Amendment either clearly does, or clearly doesn’t, apply to Trump and January 6. The truth is otherwise; the issue is highly ambiguous. What is an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution? Does it have to be as bloody and widespread as the Civil War, or does a single riot at the Capitol meet the standard? There are no definitive answers in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, in the legislative history, or in case law.

The Supreme Court can’t avoid ruling on this issue. For a variety of reasons, it will be inclined to keep Trump on the ballot, but it will do what it can to avoid looking partisan. It has several different rationales that can be used to justify its decision. What one will it choose?

Here they are, with my analysis:

1. THE AMENDMENT DOESN’T APPLY TO PRESIDENTS, SINCE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IS NOT LISTED IN THE TEXT: This approach makes no logical sense, and it gives the most dangerous man in America–the commander of the armed forces–the legal right to engage in insurrection.
2. THE ISSUE IS PREMATURE AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCESS: There is a good legal argument to that effect, but it only prolongs the agony unless Trump is somehow defeated in the primaries. We need an answer as soon as possible.
3. THE RECORD DEFINITIVELY SHOWS THAT TRUMP BEARS NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR JANUARY 6: A ruling of this nature would fly in the face of the evidence and compromise the ongoing criminal cases. The Court won’t want to do that.
4. JANUARY 6 WAS NOT AN “INSURRECTION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE EVENT IN QUESTION HAS TO INVOLVE A HIGHER LEVEL OF VIOLENCE IN MORE PLACES: Commentators since January 6 have struggled to decide whether the event was an “insurrection” or just a “riot.” While a decision of this nature would seem to give Trump and his successors a get out of jail free card for small scale events, this case can always be distinguished from future cases on its facts.

In short, I would vote for Option #4 as the best avenue of damage control. Will the Court? We’ll see.