The Broken Transmission Belt of Policy: Tariffs Edition

Since Trump returned to power, I have been talking a lot about the broken transmission belt of policy.*  In ordinary times, if a person, firm, or association had a problem, they could complain to their Congressperson or Senator, and that person would put heat on the President to reverse the policy or stop it before the policy took effect.  That is the transmission belt of policy--taking the preferences and concerns of individual and collective interests and connecting them to the actors making the big decisions.

Since Trump came back, that belt has been broken. Very little of what Trump does is popular, much of it is annoying or worse to many voters, firms, and sectors.  But Republican Congresspeople and Senators have largely been unresponsive--they have not pushed for legislative changes and they have not pressured Trump that much.

Why?  Because they range from cowards to co-conspirators.  Mostly, the former.  Trump has two things going for him that help cement his control over the party: a) he is quite willing to throw any member of his party under the proverbial bus and his followers go along with it with Musk's money as a big hammer; and b) MAGA violence is a real threat to Republicans who stray.  My fave example is Joni Ernst, who initially opposed Pete Hegseth's nomination for SecDef since he stood against what she stood for--women serving in combat and fighting sexual assault against women who serve. She folded quickly.

I return to this topic today because the trade war for Canada is terrible for many American companies and sectors.  For instance, Canada is the most important provider of potash to American farmers--85%.  The trade war will have several impacts on Americans and American firms:

• the price of various goods will go up as taxing Canadian imports, yes, increases the prices Americans pay for Canadian goods.  
• the price of various goods will go up as taxing Canadian imports, yes, increases the prices of Canadian goods so American companies that compete with Canadian imports will raise their prices as they face less competition.
• American firms will become less competitive as key inputs for their products will get more expensive--American cars, agriculture, etc. all rely on Canadian inputs.
• American firms that export to Canada will lose business as taxes on their goods--tariffs placed by Canada in relatiation--get more expensive.

In ordinary times, these kinds of folks are important political actors, offsetting those firms who benefit from a protected market--this is the stuff Helen Milner wrote so persuasively long ago. Globalization of production made it less politically attractive to be protectionist.  What has happened?  Trump doesn't care, as he has largely been immune from the impacts of his policies.  Well, his popularity isn't immune, but the GOP whine rather than legislate.  Party discipline, caused by fear and greed, has broken the transmission belt.  I still wonder about the tech firms who seem so important and rely so heavily on foreign markets, but I guess the combo of being too big to regulate or fail and being run by eugenicists and other awful people means they don't care.

Does this mean that things will change if the Dems win back both houses?  I am not so sure, as the transmission belt of policy works if the executive respects the legislature and the Constitution.  Right now, we have Trump's minions defying the very basic rules of the system--not spending money that Congress has allocated.  I am not sure they will stop when the Dems hold some power.  

So, maybe it is not just cowardice and greed that block the transmission belt, but the end of the rule of law?

Anyhow, we shall see if Trump tacos on this, as the trade war is really bad for Americans.  To be clear, the trade war is really bad for Canada, but Carney is only getting more popular as Trump has thoroughly inflamed Canadian nationalism.  Canada is united.  The US?  Not so much. 

 

 

 

 

 

* I thought I had written a post about the broken transmission belt of policy, but I can't seem to find it.

250 Years and 24: The Worst of Times, The Best of Times

I am in London, having finished a two day Civil-Military Relations Network workshop, our very first, on Command.  Run by Phil Lagassé, it considered from many angles and all over history what it means to command a military and who has the authority and such.  The moment resonated quite a bit for many reasons:

• that Phil couldn't get any Americans who specialize in this kind of stuff because they wanted to be home during the big annivesary
• that No Kings conflicts with the reality of the US being more monararchic than most constitutional monarchies (Phil's argument)
• my first time being in the place the US rebelled from in quite sometime, with the first visit to London was 39 years ago around this time.
• the utter incompetence of the Great American Fair creating much schadenfreude from a greater distance.

Dan Drezner has a great post about how things are awful now, but have been at every 50 year marker in US history. It is most instructive, especially given how much of a betrayal of the civil war was 1877.  I do remember 1976--the celebration, not so much the post-Watergate/Vietnam moment.  It was a big summer for me, as I went to summer camp for the first time two weeks after the bicentennial.  It was a strange summer for the US--an election year where one candidate was an unelected President who pardoned Nixon, who, in turn, committed what might be considered a typical day of Trump work.  

Drezner's piece has a note of optimism--that the US made some big leaps in progress in between 50 year markers.  I can't help but be more pessimistic in this moment.  As a friend put it, how can the US recover when the Republicans do not believe in democracy?  I worry that the GOP will do damage either in 2026 or in 2028 to subvert elections.  Given that they tried in 2020, that Trump pardoned those who sought to help him, that the court has given Trump immunity, why wouldn't they try to prevent the Dems from taking power.

I also worry that the Dems, if they get back into power, might not do what it takes--packing the court, admitting DC as a state, taxing the crap out of billionaires, breaking up the big tech companies, prosecuting the criminals of Trump 2.0.  The bright spot right now is that the Dem primaries are producing fighters who will push hard.  I do  hope that the rest of the Dems get the message.  I do believe that the 2028 primary election will involve dems outbidding each other to undo Trump's destruction, but I am not sure that enough fighters will be elected to support the changes that must be made.

I did hear from some folks who say that the Dems can't fight fire with fire, but giving into the GOP and being bipartisan helped get us here.  There will be no reforms without unpacking the court, and the Dems need to improve representation so that, yes, the GOP can't get back into power without expanding its appeal to beyond white folks and those betraying their groups (ethnic groups, religious groups, etc).  Who radicalized me?  Mitch McConnell.  

Anyhow, on the anniversary of 250 years of the US Declaration of Independence, I am most worried.

On the other hand, I was busy traveling so I missed posting about my 24th Canada Day in Canada.  Canada has been very, very good to me.  It rescued me from West Texas, where I would probably have been fired by now given attitudes there about academic freedom.  I have had much success here--fun books, heaps of grant-funded travel, several big grants to fund a series of terrific networks, two cool jobs, amazing access to folks in and near government, great colleagues, twenty years of awesome ultimate, much improvement on the slopes, and more.  

Canadian politics is not as broken as American politics, but, yes, we can see it from here.  Federalism is broken as the feds get blamed when the provincial leaders do their best to break pretty much everything.  The current government is pretty right wing for a center-left party--central bankers are not hippies, as it turns out.  But we have dodged having a Trump wannabe serve as Prime Minister--our own bad faith actor.   

ultimately, I place my hope on the fact that the US has always managed to recover from its lowest lows.  The majority of Americans support the right things (except for trans rights, as the demonizing of a fragile minority has gotten so much support from folks who shouldn't --NYT!), and the elections since Nov 2024 have been a rejection of Trump.  But I am not sure the institutions and the votes will matter... I hope so, but I am just not sure.

Sorry for this American birthday post being so depressing..... 

 

 

Is It a Civil War? Not Yet

 Things are truly awful in the US, so is this the time to get pedantic?  Well, maybe.  I posted on bluesky that I was more worried about events in Minnesota than in/re Greenland.

 

In the ensuing discussion, I got some pushback--that the US is already in a civil war and any suggestion that it isn't means that I am minimizing what is going on here.  This is giving me flashbacks to the Jan 6 is a coup or not a coup arguments.  In the aftermath, I argued that the events of January 6th were an insurrection and, yes, an autogolpe (self-coup) and not a coup d'etat.  The latter has two dynamics that were not present that day--the involvement of significant elements of the coercive arms of the state (military, secret police, etc) and an effort to change who is in power.  I argued that this put the attention in the wrong places as the focus should have been on the White House and Congress, not the military.

This time?  Why is this not a civil war?  Again, two key ingredients are not yet present with one more important than the other.  First and not quite as important: scale.  Thus far, the violence is quite limited even as it is appalling and awful.  Civil wars are large scale things, and, yes, we social scientists usually use numbers to distinguish between categories of events.  For inter-state wars, we tend to use 1000 battle deaths.  For civil wars, we use all kinds of numbers, but even if we set it as low as 25, I am not sure we are there yet.  Second, and most importantly, civil wars are two-way affairs (or more so, as we saw in Bosnia and Syria and elsewhere), and the violence in the US has been an entirely one-sided thing--the state is engaging in much violence against protestors, but the other side of this, the anti-Trump, anti-ICE forces are not using any significant violence against the government's forces .... thus far.  

Which makes what is happening in Minnesota, Chicago, Portland, Washington, DC, and elsewhere state repression (you can call it state terrorism). And that is truly awful and part of the US becoming an autocracy (although democracies repress as well).  Again, this is important for both social science reasons and accountability reasons.  For political scientists, it allows us to compare this to similar events in the American history and around the world (Tianamen Square?) to note key dynamics and make predictions and policy recommendations.  For accountability, calling it a civil war suggests there are two sides that may have some responsibility here.  And, damn it, we know that this is being entirely driven by Trump and his regime.  The violence is very one-sided, with all of the responsibility for the bloodshed in the hands of Trump, ICE/DHS, and the Republicans (as they hold power in the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court).  

Does this mean this is not serious, that I am minimizing the event?  I sure as hell don't think so--when the power of the state is being used to kill and kidnap and deport without any due process, so very capriciously and so much by one ethnic group aimed at others, it is very, very serious indeed.

If people want to use "civil war" for rhetorical purposes, go right ahead.  It is not my job to tell people how they should resist these abuses of power, this persecution, and, yes, these massacres (are massacres a scale thing? I am not sure).  I am not going to tone police folks, but I am also not going to change how I talk about this stuff online.  I seek to analyze, to explain, to compare, and to contrast.  And being consistent with the usual scholarly use of terms is helpful in those efforts. 

Who Is Captured By Identity Politics?

 The right wing doth project too much, episode 2342397.  I saw this and I couldn't help but wonder is this bad faith or someone being so captured that they don't see what they are doing:

 The comeback by WeatherWatcher430 is brilliant.  But I want to take this seriously for a moment.

The idea here is that tweeter thinks that all left wing folks should support Jewish women and Black men regardless of the content of their ideas or, dare I say it, the content of their character.  The right inverts MLK Jr's dictum, as they believe that the left does not believe in merit, that the left just supports people due to their identities.  It apparently breaks their brains when the left folks can distinguish between Jewish women and Black men who have ideas and arguments that make sense to them and support their larger values and those Jewish women and Black men whose ideas are counter to the left's values.

Generalizing about an entire group, whether it is progressives having a unitary view about other people's identities or it is all women or Black americans or whatever, is actually really problematic and is the road to racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and the other horsepeople of hate.  And, yes, I am guilty of generalizing about the right wing, but I think that makes more sense because the right wing tends to be authoritarian in nature, producing ultimately far greater message (and thought) discipline than the left.  I will try harder in the future to distinguish those on the right who are not captured by hate, those who are not fans of autocracy, those who are not willing to go along with the autocratization of the US (or of Canada, as Pierre Poilievre is borrowing much of Trump's script, having learned nothing from the most recent election).  

All I ask the right wing is: get your bad faith characterizations of the left consistent--either the left betrays their kind by not being sufficiently focused on identities uber all OR they are focused on identities uber alles.  Choose a stereotype and stick with it, FFS. 

 

 

GOFO* or Go Home? Pete Hegseth's Insecurity Complex and the Non-Partisan Military

Congrats, today is now the worst day in US civil-military relations since the Civil War.  It outclasses the two previous times I used this same meme.  I will just pick on a few of the worst parts of the Hegseth's and Trump's speeches.  

*[GOFO stands for General Officer and Flag Officers: generals and admirals]

But first, for those new to civil-military relations, a couple of key points:
A) There is no single best way for a democracy to control its military BUT civilian control of the military is a key ingredient for democracy.  That the relationship requires both civilians (especially but not only those in the executive branch) and military folks to behave responsibly and that there are norms--standards of behavior--that serve as guidelines for how to mange the relationship.  
B) The presence or absence of tension is not a great indicator of the health of a country's civil-military relations.  There could be absolute peace with one side is getting rolled by the other.  So, just as it is hard to evaluate whether a military is effective, it is not easy to assess whether a particular country's civil-military relations is healthy or not.  BUT when things go really badly, it is pretty obvious to most, if not all civ-mil experts.  
Oh and C) much of the expertise about civil-military relations is in the hands of, dare I say it, civilians.  Most generals and admirals have little experience in their side of managing civil-military relations--only those who get close to the top plus some who served as aides to various players.  But, yes, many civilians either in or near the defense agency have some expertise and, yes, yes, scholars of civil-military relations have much expertise as well.  I don't consider myself as much as an expert as others because I have only spent half my career on this stuff.  

Anyhow, I can guarantee you that most civ-mil experts around the world are freaking out over today's speeches as they violated pretty much every norm, especially those aimed at keeping the military out of partisan politics--this was politicization in its most extreme and unsubtle forms.  Which calls for Homer and Bart yet again: 

 

First, I was going to go through Hegseth's speech via this source, line by line, but it would make for a really long blogpost.  So just a few consistent issues and some really awful ideas/writing: 

1. Most obviously, why the hell did all of the GOFO's need to spend a heap of time and money to get to Quantico when they fucking televised the speech? This by itself was abuse of power, a waste of resources, and extremely amateurish.
2. The speech sprinkles throughout a heap of misogyny and racism for suggesting that DEI has greatly shaped who has led and why they were fired.   Of course, Hegseth goes on to blame the "woke department" as if the US military was some kind of far left organization.  Yes, it was the most diverse organization I worked within, but woke?  Not so much. Really, if there was one theme to the speech it is his Christian nationalism animating his hostility to anyone who is not white and male.
3. One of the enduring problems of civil-military relations is that the militaries of the world see the civilians as lacking expertise and are amateurs, fostering contempt. My gen of civ-mil scholars blame Sam Huntington's book for that, but now we will always have Hegseth.  Because he is a freaking amateur (despite or because of his specific military experience) who is way out of his depth, and this speech demonstrated it. His ideas of what a military is for, what makes for a good soldier/sailor/aviator/Marine is so limited, and yet he seems so confident.  His ignorance is vast.  Indeed, he may have imposter syndrome (well, he is an imposter) so that the entire speech reeks of overcompensation.  A key example: He calls for "more AI in everything."  This shows how shallow his knowledge is, how quick he is to grab the latest trend without any serious thought. 
4. Hegseth lacks self-awareness.  He claims he wants to rip out the politics.  By having all of the GOFOs sit through his very partisan speech and then a partisan speech by the President?
5. One section really makes no sense as he said that the big litmus test is whether the conditions in the military are such that he would want his eldest son to join the military and then says, "if in any way the answer to that is no, or even yes, but, then we’re doing something wrong." So, either way, it is bad?
6. Hegseth says that he and POTUS will have the backs of the GOFO's, that they should not lose their careers for making earnest mistakes.  But then goes on to talk about his firing of senior officers and that "we all serve at the pleasure of the president every single day."  This speech is again utterly incoherent and contradictory.
7. "You are hereby liberated to be an apolitical, hard-charging, no-nonsense, constitutional leader that you joined the military to be." Yet the speech is the opposite and then Trump's even more so.
8.  The one Hegseth consistency, other than drinking and Christian nationalism, is a fondness for war crimes:  "We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement." His support for legitimating and honoring war criminals is one of his other consistencies, and which helped bring him to Trump's attention.  By itself, this should have been disqualifying, but then in Trump's bizarro world, that which makes someone utterly disqualified and, yes, deplorable, makes them perfect for the job.

Trump: 

1.  Trump was disappointed that the generals and admirals didn't cheer him (they don't cheer him during the State of the Union when he makes a political point either, so this is not new), because he sees them as his generals and admirals and not the nation's.  Their refusal to cheer in a partisan fashion definitely rankled Trump quite a bit. Trump's insults of Biden, of course, in front of this audience is an effort to drag the military into partisan politics.  One of the cardinal responsibilities of civilians in civil-military relations is to keep the military out of partisan politics, and Trump not just does not get that, but he is always trying to get the military into difficult circumstances where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Such as filming a campaign ad at Arlington National Cemetery.  
2. The speech is typical Trump, incoherent, full of resentments, mischaracterizing basic stuff.  He rehashed the Gulf of America bs, for instance.  An example of incoherence: "we want war because we want to have no wars. But you have to be there. And, you know, sometimes you have to do it."
3. Trump lists Patton, Bradley and MacArthur and not Ike or Nimitz.  Which is telling--Trump's understanding of war and of history is that of a 12 year old. 
4. Words are wind: "I support you. And as President, I have your backs 100 percent. You’ll never see me even waver a little bit."  Remember when he said don't blame me, blame my generals after an early mess in his first term?  Remember what Trump has said about those who have been wounded, killed or taken prisoner? They are losers.
5. The most disturbing part of the speech was his reference to "our inner cities, which we’re going to be talking about because it’s a big part of war now. It’s a big part of war."  Trump promised to send troops to more and more American cities where the Democrats govern, claiming they are unsafe, which, of course, ignores the crime statistics. And this is where things got really disturbing: "And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war, too. It’s a war from within.... "I told Pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military — National Guard, but military — because we’re going into Chicago very soon."

  Trump has always been quite awful and irresponsible when it comes to managing the military, first by appointing a recently retired senior officer to be SecDef and then more recently by appointing a bitter, ignorant Christian nationalist to be SecDef. He has constantly tried to politicize the military, trying to make the military to be a MAGA military and not the country's armed forces. This will have much negative consequences including hurting recruitment, disrupting cohesion within the military as promotion becomes very partisan, and reducing the effectiveness of the military.  One of the fundamental findings of research in this area is that dragging the military into the partisan arena, by appointing via loyalty and not by merit (Pete doth protest too much about this), will make the military less able to deter and fight America's adversaries. As the US becomes an autocracy, it will find itself losing its advantages in war.  Yes, the US has not won too many wars lately, but lethality is not the problem--putting bullets, shells, missiles, bombs on target is what the US military does best.  

But war is politics by other means, so being lethal is only one ingredient for winning a war.  Again, these two disqualified and unqualified men have no clue about that. Instead, despite their assertions, Trump and Hegseth are doing their damnedest to undermine the US armed forces.  Of course, the best way to do that is to use the army against the American people, and Trump's speech promised just that.  And when that happens, if the order is given for the military to use force against the American people, that will be the worst day in US civil-military relations.

 

 

 

Angry Steve Asks Angry Question

 I was at a side event for the NATO Summit tonight--a nightcap roundtable that featured a German government spokesperson, the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, and Senator Coots of Delaware.  I think that Coots is mostly a good guy and is definitely taking the right stands on Ukraine, but I was in a bad mood due to the Democratic Party's shenanigans.  So, I asked a pesky question: essentially, wtf are the Dems doing, lining up with Andrew Cuomo and also shooting down a doomed impeachment effort?  Coots said that he is tired of being told they are not fighting since they are fighting the awful budget bill.  And I get that, but I have a few simple rules:

a)  Don't support a sex pest. There is no reason the Dems should be lining up in support of Andrew Cuomo, who was a shitty governor, a shitty democrat (his moves helped NY's Republicans), and a shitty human being.  It really is not a hard call.  Maybe you don't like his main opponent, but, to be blunt, fuck that, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.  Cuomo should have been run out of town on a rail or tarred and feathered.

b) Instead of opposing a doomed to fail impeachment effort, the Dems should be impeaching Trump every single day.  If Trump is engaged in impeachable acts every day (and he has), then the Dems need to keep up.  Just in the last week: deploying Marines to LA, continued blackmail of Harvard, not consulting Dems before/as he bombed Iran, and ... damn, I have lost track, so many, so many.  Coonts said that if they fought everything, it would shut down the government.  And, I wish I could have had a chance to reply: shut down ICE?  Yeah, that would be ok.  

c) and oh, yeah, don't vote for a fucking crypto bill.  FFS.

d) maybe support younger pols so that you don't have so many dead members of Congress that you can't block votes when the possibility could otherwise arise.

 I get it--the system and the media are gamed against the Dems. But the elections since November make it clear that the voters want fighters, not appeasers.  And, yes, this summit itself might become viewed as an Appeasement Summit (someone asked if this was the worst summit ever, and it was as serious question).  

The Democrats need to take this moment seriously.  DOGE, impoundments, Trump's incredible level of corruption, the politicization of the US military, the crushing of free speech/assembly, the many abuses of power, the faithlessness when it comes to executing the laws of the US, and the defiance of the courts are simply the starting point for the list of high crimes and misdemeanors.  To try to game out the 2026/2028 elections one must first think about how/whether those elections will be compromised by a weaponized Department of Justice.  They have started arresting Democrats and judges who are inconvenient.  FFS, this ain't politics as normal.

Ok, that's my rant of the late summit evening.  I probably didn't come across as too dispassionate tonight at the nightcap.  But it is hard not to be irate and disappointed when the Dems side with sex pests and against their own party members who seek to challenge the president.  For Fuck Sake!
 

 

There Can Be Only One .... Litmus Test

 The friends of Tapper are doing their best to promote his book, even suggesting that the Dems will be evaluated in 2028 based on where they stand on Biden's health during the latter stages of his term.  If only those folks were not so self-interested and perhaps read a smidge of political science, they might not say something so outrageously stupid.  So, first, why this ain't going to be the litmus test and then what will be the litmus test for the Democratic nomination fight in 2028 (if we have free and fair elections*).

What do we know from social science? 

• Voters have short memories.  Did Trump's first term crimes and failures sink his 2024 election run? Nope.  Lots of reasons for that, but partly because people (voters and those who chose not to vote) either forgot how bad it was or discounted because we tend to discount that which is not in our immediate present (we discount both the past and the future).
• Scandals of non-candidates do not matter.  If this is a scandal at all, it is Biden's, and I am pretty sure he isn't running in 2028.  Sure, the media will ask each Democratic nominee about what they thought about Biden four years earlier, but the smart pols can dodge pretty easily.  If this matters at all, it won't hurt the governors or Congresspeople in the race, just those serving in the Biden Administration (Harris, Buttigieg).  
  
• Primaries matter a great deal.  Some might even say they select the nominee.  Are Dems going to outbid each other on who was quickest to realize that Biden was declining and did something about it?  Oh wait, nobody but Pelosi did much about this, and I am pretty sure she isn't running either.  

Speaking of outbidding, what will Dems outbid each other on in 2028?  How about resisting/fighting Trump and his team of far right arsonists?  Remember how much juice Cory Booker got for filibustering for over a day?  Oh wait, the same Cory Booker just voted to confirm the Ambassador appointment of Jared Kushner's dad. You know, the guy who was corrupt AF and even hired a prostitute to set up his brother-in-law.  So, Booker, in one incredibly dumb move, destroyed whatever cred he had.

I don't know who will win (I am bad at predicting outcomes), but I can guarantee you that the focus of the competition will be on who did the most to block the worst that Trump was doing.  Think back to the big nomination battles of yore:

• 1992: many of the Dems who might have run were constrained by voting against the Gulf War, leaving a field wide open for a guy who couldn't take that stand since he was not in the Senate at the time (that would be Bill Clinton for the youngsters, an important Semi-Spew demographic**).
• 2008: the key litmus test was who voted for the invasion of Iraq, helping Obama defeat Hillary.
• 2020: the outbidding was mostly on health care, but the key litmus test ended up being who was thought to have the best chance of defeating Trump.

A reminder to all the pundits: the folks who vote in primaries are not the centrists, but the extremes.  For Trump in 2016, that meant the racists, the misogynists, the xenophobes.  For the Dems in 2028, it will certainly mean the people most aggrieved by the harm committed by the Trump administration.  They will turn out the most as they will be the most passionate.  And they will not be voting for the folks who tried to work with Trump.  As much as the media likes for Dems to bend the knee (the Republicans are never really pushed to be bipartisan), the Dem primary voters will cut any such compromiser off at the knees.  Newsom is already a dead candidate walking.  Whitmer is on the edge.  Booker may survive this week's vote because confirming incredibly corrupt ambassador picks may not get much heat.  Who has got the heat now?  AOC, Buttigieg, Walz, and Pritzker.  Why?  Because they are speaking out against Trump and his band of autocratic criminals.  They aren't making any deals.  The good news for three of them, like Obama and Clinton before them, won't be in any position to cast votes for Trump's appointments or policies.  And I am pretty sure AOC won't be voting for any such stuff either.

Watch the elections in 2025 and see what the politicians do and who is rewarded for trying to work with Trump (no one) and who is rewarded for opposing him?  We have already seen some elections in the US (and a heap across the world) where those opposing Trump the most win.  Expect more of the same and expect the pols to learn from this.

So scoff at those who say anything else, including a Biden-focused issue, will be a litmus test.  There can be only one, and this ain't it.

 

 *  For those who think things will be swell, note that Trump's weaponized DoJ has started charging Democratic politicians with crimes.  My only surprise is that AOC was not first.   

** I am pretty sure the youths are not reading this.  If it were on tik tok, maybe.

Is the Rubicon One River Or Many?

 A friend on social media suggested that Trump has crossed multiple Rubicons, which got me thinking.

To start, the reference is to Caesar who sparked a civil war once he crossed the Rubicon river, which divided Gaul (France) from Rome.  So, when folks say someone crossed the Rubicon, it generally means they broke some major precedent, took an irrevocable step that challenges the existing order.  There is no going back, and it is the first step towards breaking the current order.

So, when did Trump cross the Rubicon?  He has taken so many transgressive steps that should have led to successful impeachment (except that does not work in systems where there are parties and the incumbent party has enough votes in the relevant bodies), to his not being on the ballot, to his not winning the election.   I think the focus here should be on transgressions that violate the constitution and turn the US into a competitive (or not so competitive) autocracy. 

So, we can quibble whether the following steps are crossing a minor Rubicon tributary or the main Rubicon river, but they are all transgressive enough that they do not so much cause the US to backslide towards autocracy but are actually pushing the US away from democracy (backsliding seems way too passive to me).:

1. Turning ICE into a secret police force that sends people abroad with no due process.
2. Impoundments.  Trump has taught us words that we did not really know (see emoulements), such as when a President refuses to spend money allocated by Congress.  I remember being shocked in Brazil when doing research there that their finance minister didn't have to spend money appropriated by their Congress.
3. Defying court orders.   
4. Emoulements galore.  Last time, Trump didn't pay a price for the modest (modest compared to now) corruption of foreigners spending heaps of money at his hotel near the White House. This time?  Oh my.  The Qatar Air Force One knock-off is so obviously corrupt and wrong, but the big money is involves insider trading and the crypto coin crap.
5. Empowering an illegal entity to close down government agencies, plunder the data those agencies save, and even destroy a so-called independent entity--the US Institute of Peace.  All of Musk's destruction is ultimately Trump taking a huge step across the main Rubicon river.  
6. Coercing law firms and universities to bend their knees.   
7. Firing senior officers because they were either not the right color or gender or because they were not sufficiently loyal to the man, not the office.   

I am sure I missed a few tributaries.  Pretty much all of these are impeachable offenses with the possible exception of the last one--as it can be a bit gray in theory anyway.  Which one is the widest Rubicon stream, that is the most irreversible, most responsible for turning the US into an autocracy?  It is a tough call, but the top two are definitely the impoundments for usurping Congress's power and the breaking due process.  

From here on out, there is no more crossing the Rubicon as Trump has crossed the river any way you, um, slice it.  He can and will do more damage, but we are on the other side now.  Not the side of civil war (although he is inciting political violence) but the side of autocracy.  We can go back, but it is going to be very, very difficult especially with so many actors (leading Democrats, the media, and the Supreme Court) not taking seriously what is happening.

Steve As Fake Economist: Maybe not as Dumb As the Wannabe Oligarchs?

 I am not an economist, but so much of what is going on these days is due to faulty understandings of basic economics, so even my level of understanding may be sufficent.

I just wanted to highlight a few things that bluesky conversations forced me to think about.

First, there is the discussion of the chances of a recession happening in 2025.  In my humble opinion, the probability is not 25% or 50% but 100%.  That is, it is a certainty because IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.  A recession is when the economy shrinks as opposed to growing.  The formal definition is when it happens for two quarters.  

Will there be less economic activity this year?  There already is less and it will continue.  That cutting hundreds of thousands of government jobs AND cutting heaps of money from flowing to various actors (cities, states, universities, etc) will reduce the economic activity.  Plus, yes, multiplier effects--those restaurants and other services that benefit from having fully operating universities, states, cities, think tanks, etc will be doing less, buying less, spending less.  

This is before we get to the tariffs, which have already started to hit the economy--that firms are pausing production because they really don't know what their inputs will cost nor will they know what kinds of prices they can charge if they hope to export into markets that are, yes, raising their prices due to retaliatory tariffs.  

The only way to avoid a recession--the technical definition--is if somehow all of this temporary for one quarter and no more than that.  Guess what?  Trump is not going to reverse all of the Musking and DOGE-ing of the government, and no matter what happens with the tariffs, it will have stirred up too much uncertainty to magically erase within one quarter.  This recession is likely to last a long time precisely because this administration does not believe in standard macroeconomics.  But standard macroeconomics believes in it--spend less money, people will buy less, economic activity will slow.  Tax cuts on the very rich may prop up some investments, but they don't actually generate as much economic activity as argued--it does not trickle down.  

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned what Trump is doing to agriculture by keeping out migrant workers or what he is doing to tourism, a very big industry, due to the fear of being disappeared.  

So, that's the first thing I wanted to get off my chest.

The second is this: before the election, business folks had to consider who would be better for them: the guy who promised tax cuts and deregulation or the woman who wasn't going to raise tariffs or create a tremendous amount of uncertainty.  It seems like most of them chose the former and not the latter.

This was, in a word, dumb.  Why?  American businesses already pay very little tax, and rich people pay historically low taxes still.  And they can evade much of it.  Yes, regulation is annoying, but if they want to export to the EU, then they will face regulations there anyway. Plus they can price in penalties and figure out ways to dodge or cheat on the regs.

What they can't finesse are trade wars or uncertainty.  Uncertainty is an absolute killer except for those who can wager on it.  For most businesses, having predictable political and economic situations is basic for making investment decisions and for good operations.  Maybe the Silicon Valley types who have fallen in love with disruption think they don't need either inputs from abroad (or to sell stuff abroad) or stable environments, but pretty much every other actor in the economy relies on foreign inputs, foreign markets, and stable situations.  

So, now, they are fucked.  Unfortunately, so are we.   

Yes, we have short-term-itis among business people--that the focus is on today's market price and not tomorrow's profits. I get that.  But damn, tomorrow turned out to be today, not five years from now.  

Again, what angers me so much is that it didn't have to be this way--just like the Brits stupidly chose Brexit, which was predictably dumb, much of American business chose Trump focusing on tax cuts and deregulation and wishful thinking away the tariffs, the trade wars, the uncertainty, the cheap labor provided by immigrants.  

Will this lead to Trump's undoing?  Maybe eventually, but as long as the GOP fears Musk's money going to primary candidates and Trump siccing his mob on those who disagree with him, I doubt that the GOP will find their backbone.  Maybe the media will stop providing cover for this as people become increasingly outraged.  So, the pain has come quickly, but I don't think it will go away anytime too soon. 

Sorry to be a doomblogger, but at this point, things just suck mightily.  The protests have already made a difference as Democrats are starting to block stuff, and most elections have gone Dem since November.  But the only way out is through--impeachment won't get rid of Trump, and if it did, we'd have Vance.  

The Purge Continues: Cyber Edition

 Trump fired the head of the National Security Agency General Timothy Haugh, who is also double hatted as head of Cyber Command.  I went on a long rant on bluesky, which I will mostly replicate here.  As military folks like to BLUF--bottom line up front--just like every other institution in the US, the military is being broken.  Making fealty to the mad king will undermine effectiveness in a number of ways.  

First, some basics: to be clear, the military is always a political actor and subject to the political dynamics of a country.  It goes back to Clausewitz--that war is politics by other means--and the basic definition of politics which focuses on any kind of decision-making that affects the public, especially the allocation of money and other stuff.  Being partisan is something else entirely.  We used to have American generals refuse to vote because that they wanted to be neutral.  In the past 30 years, some of that has broken down as retired admirals and generals began to endorse candidates, playing upon the perception that they were speaking for the active forces.  But it was not inevitable that we would get here.

During Trump 1.0, many norms (standards of appropriate behavior), were violated repeatedly.

• Trump announced the Muslim ban from the part of the Pentagon paying tribute to various heroes
• Trump kept referring to the senior officers as "my generals"
• Trump blamed the generals and admirals if things went awry rather than owning things--the buck never stopped with him
• Trump used the military to deal with protestors and wanted to do it more violently--"Can't they shoot the protestors in the leg?"
• Trump pardoned war criminals

 It got to the point where scholars of civil-military relations, who usually try to avoid advocating for any military disobedience, were tempted to root for some.  In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the senior leadership spoke out in favor of a diverse force and for tolerance.  This was seen as being partisan--because it could be viewed as an implicit critique of Trump's take on the event.  But not speaking up would have been seen as complicit. 

This is where Michael Robinson's work fits in--he wrote a great book that argues that even if the military stands still, if the observers are moving, the military will be seen as moving either towards or away--that they will be dragged into partisan politics--politicization--even if they resist it.  

As I discussed a few weeks ago, when Milley retired and spoke out about how the military serves the country and not a wannabe dictator, it was pretty clear that what might otherwise be a banal statement was a criticism of Trump.

The firing of Haugh is yet another dead canary in the coalmine (that coalmine must be packed with dead canaries at this point).  A few things stand out.  He is a white man, so the previous purge was perhaps just racist and misogynist (note I am not approving--I am incredibly angry) as Trump fired one Black general and two women four star officers. One could argue (foolishly) that this was not aimed at creating a submissive class of officers.   By firing Haugh, it is abundantly clear loyalty to Trump is the only criteria that matters.

And who decides?  Laura Loomer, who is a far right agitator.  She was briefly banned by social media for being racist.  It is quite notable that this firing happened basically at the same time as several people were purged from the National Security Council for not being sufficiently Trumpian.   

It will not stop here as Trump's fundamental insecurity produces an unquenchable thirst for loyalists.  He won't ever be confident in the loyalty of whichever people he promotes to admiral or general.  His own disloyalty gets projected in every direction.

And this happens as we have already seen many disturbances in the force--banning books at the Naval Academy, the commandant of the US Air Force Academy pondering firing civilian profs, civ-mil conferences cancelled at the Army War College. 

This will produce a less effective force.  Those who get promoted will be seen as less qualified, less meritorious, as they will be viewed as moving up due to their partisan loyalty.  The civ-mil literature shows quote clearly that when you promote on the basis of loyalty, you get bad results-Talmadge, Roessler, etc.  This will create dissension and friction within as unit cohesion will break.   [Any time a military seeks to include the previously excluded--Black Americans, gays and lesbians, trans people, the intolerant argue that this is bad for unit cohesion, and a coherent unit is necessary for battlefield success.  It turns out that the real problem are the intolerant people, as the diverse armed forces of the world have proven to be most effective.]

An officer corps of yes-men (and yes, I do mean men) may make it easier to issue orders to invade Mexico or shoot at Americans, but with disrupted unit cohesion, it will be more likely that the military will not engage in such efforts in unison--and those divides might become violent.

The only winners in all of this are those countries seen by normal people as America's adversaries--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, etc. 

Just like the tariffs, this is all so unnecessary, so destructive, so costly to so many individuals as well as to the country and to those who used to be America's allies.  

So that is my angry civ-mil riff du jour as another general is tossed for appearing to be not sufficiently loyal to the mad king. 

 

The Two Games Aren't Level: Dems Shouldn't Cooperate but Countries Should Pander

 I am seeing some stories of Democrats trying to pick off some elements of the Trump 2.0 agenda and agreeing to cooperate with them while I also saw much condemnation of Canadian PM Trudeau for going to Marlago to pander to Trump.  This is exactly backwards.  The key is this: the Democrats and foreign leaders are playing completely different games so don't expect them to behave the same.

The easier thing is foreign leaders: yes, going to meet with Trump legitimizes Trump a bit.  But foreign leaders have no choice--the American people elected Trump president again.  Yes, it sucks, but here we/they are.  The President is the actor for any country around the globe in normal times, and when the President happens to threaten his opponents or even his supposed friends with political violence and when his party is full of cowards yet they dominate every national institution, a foreign leader has to interact with Trump.  

This pic also legitimates Ivanka... yuck

People's memories are short, but very prominent and powerful leaders visited Trump in December of 2016 to get a sense of Trump and also, yes, to pander to him.  Trump is easy to manipulate if you know how, and flattery will get you very far.  Japan's Prime Minister Abe played Trump early and it paid dividends for the entire Trump 1.0 administration.  Did Japan get heaps of crap for not spending 2%?  Not nearly as much as other countries.  As far as I can recall, Japan did not get nearly as much pressure as South Korea for the privilege of hosting American troops.  

To be clear, this time, trying to go around Trump will not work.  Team Canada did a great job playing to Republicans in Congress and to Republican governors to try to minimize Trump's threats to the US-Canada trade relationship.  This time, it will simply not work.  This GOP is not the same GOP--it is now thoroughly Trump's party, which means they will do his bidding most of the time even if it hurts the interests of their district or state.  They live in fear of his encouraging them to be primaried or to have his supporters sicced on them.  So, yeah, Trudeau pandering to Trump's ego is the right move.  Will Pierre Poilevre be able to do so or will Trump look at him like he looks at Ted Cruz?

On to the Dems.  They need to oppose everything Trump does.  They need to make him fail.  This worked for the GOP, so time to learn from the opposition. The Dems need to paint every bad thing as being Trump's fault, they need to block as much as they can for as long as they can.  His policies will do harm, and the "good" ones will only provide cover for the bad ones.  Working with Musk and Vivek on the dodgy DOGE bullshit only grants it legitimacy it should not have.  The problem with government is not that it is wasteful--the problem with government today is that the GOP prevents it from serving the American people.  Remember what the Postal Service did during the first Trump Admin?  FFS.

Musk should be confronted at all times--he has not been confirmed by the Senate, DOGE is not a legitimate government agency, it should not be treated as anything other than a billionaire's club.  

To be clear, the election was close, and Harris lost because the pandemic and international dynamics produced inflation.  It was not a mandate for radical change that Trump proposes.  While the immigration message played well, there is no immigration crisis and it should not be granted the status of a real thing.  The Dems should fight back on that even if it is not popular at the moment.  It will become more popular as Trump's massive deportation hurts lots of Trump voters and everyone else and as it devastates the economy.  Get in front of it, for fuck suck.  

The only thing the Dems should avoid doing is hurting people.  So, the Dems can't close the government in a bargaining situation with Trump.  But then again, they don't control either house, so that's not really a choice.  But they should block everything else.  Stand for something.  And don't grant any of Trump's initiatives any legitimacy.  Unlike a foreign leader, you don't have to work with Trump.

Third time's a Charm? Prediction time

 

I made a big prediction in 2016 and got it wrong.  Of course, I couldn't anticipate that Comey would tip the scale at the end, but I underestimated Republicans selling out their souls for some power.  So, should I avoid making a prediction now?  Should I put up a pessimistic one to be safe?  Nope, it is time to be ruthlessly optimistic again.  Plus I was right in 2020.  50% is a great batting average or a great 3 point percentage.

So, I shall list my reasons for optimism before putting up my prediction:

1. At the top of the list: the Republicans have under-performed in every election since 2016.  Really.  Yes, they got seats in the mid-term in 2022 but less than they should have.  Why?  Because the reality of Trump really sucks and the further spinning of the GOP from the mainstream to the far right is actually, yes, not so popular.  
   
2. I almost had this first: Dobbs.  I think Dobbs and then the passion for far right legislation--severe abortion bans, anti-IVF proposals, even anti-birth control stuff--will energize women voters far more than the potential of such stuff eight and four years ago.   Plus so many states literally have abortion on the ballot via referenda including key states like Arizona, Nevada, and Florida,   I am tempted to list the corruption and arrogance of the Supreme Court separately, but I will just leave it here.  
3. Many factors above and below: no Democratic complacency.  The near panic about Trump winning should drive turnout.
   
4. Efforts to pander to Black and Latino misogynists have been undercut by the Haitian immigrant crap of a few weeks ago and of the Madison Square Garden fiasco.  The polls always exaggerated how many Black men were going to swing towards Trump.  Yes, misogynists are going to vote for Trump, but that was pretty baked in before Biden dropped out--Trump is THE candidate for  women-haters.  MSG may have put Florida in play as Puerto Ricans will turn out against Trump in a big way.
   
5. Kamala Harris has run an amazing campaign.  She is the change candidate despite being the incumbent VP.  That takes some terrific political acumen, discipline, a great team, and, yes, Trump exhaustion.  She is also, yes, a far better candidate than either Trump or Biden--smart, attractive, dynamic, younger, with a great story about who she is.
   
6. Tim Walz.  His debate performance wasn't great, but he is fantastic in interviews and at rallies.  
7. JD Vance.  Just a repellent asshole who has negative charisma.  Because so much has happened in the past couple of months, we forget how much he turned people off.  And he still does.  I almost think he puts Ohio in play for the Presidential level as the entire state has regret about electing him to be their Senator.
8. Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Lebron, Bad Bunny, and all of the rest of the elites of our culture are on the same side.  Folks may discount this stuff, but it matters at the margins.  Who does Trump have?  Hulk Hogan.
   
9. Trump's ground game sucks. We know this.  Elon Musk "helping" is not a help.  Folks vastly overrate Musk's skills at anything, and he certainly does.
10. The GOP helped to kill its base via its anti-vax stances.  We have good stats showing that more Republicans died in the pandemic... for a reason.
11. The fucking fundamentals.  In 2016, the Dems had been in power for eight years and the economy was ok.  In 2024, the Dems have been in power for four years and people aren't tired of them yet.  Not like they are tired of, yes, Trudeau, or, yes Trump.  Oh, and the economy is one of low unemployment and low inflation.  Folks may blame Biden for the bout with inflation--things are more expensive now but the rate is no longer zooming up--but the economy is actually pretty great at the aggregate level, especially when compared with all of the other democracies.
12. There are so many shitty Republican candidates that will drag down the vote in a variety of states: Arizona as Kari Lake, NC with Mark Robinson, and so on.  This might be repeating #1.
    
13. The electorate keeps changing.  Yes, the Republicans keep courting the conservative immigrants via religious appeals and such, but their hate of immigrants matters quite a bit.  Sure, it is a grand American tradition to close the door behind you a la Musk, but the electorate is less white than it once was.  Not because of any Great Replacement plan or dynamic, but because the US remains an attractive place to live despite what the GOP is doing to it.
14. The national security stuff.  Yes, I overestimated it eight years ago, but since then Trump has stolen secret docs and kept them at his golf club and so on.  Which leads to
15. There were Never Trumpers in 2016, but the Republicans for Harris seems to be much more of a thing.
16. Because of January 6th.  That should have ended Trump's political career.  It didn't, but it does move the needle.  It should be at the top of the list, and it is a sad recognition that it is not...
    
17. The polls?  Seems to be the case that they are converging on a close race because they don't want to get it wrong.  I also think #1 matters here.
    
18. The early numbers are mostly encouraging--about turning out, about women turning out, about swing states.
19. Speaking of early reactions, Trump's social media stuff in PA is suggestive--that their internal polling suggests the state is lost.  
20. Will enough voters remember that Trump fucked up the pandemic?  I hope so.
21. Trump is frickin old. Biden got pushed out because he was seen as too old.  Trump has lost his mojo and is low energy.  He really has run the shittiest campaign this time.  Small crowds that leave early, fewer rallies. And people are just tired of him and tired about talking about him.  Time to move on.  Some would say we are not going back. 

 

 

 

I still think Nevada will go Dem, but I am not as confident.  Between the abortion referendum and Kari Lake sucking so much, Arizona is going Dem again.  NC?  Always tempts us, but this time they have a horrific Gov candidate that will help push the state over the top.   

Senate?  I haven't followed this as much--the map is brutal this time as these are the folks who won in 2018, Trump's midterm.  So, more Dem seats.  WV is lost, Montana is probably as well.  I am not worried much about Arizona.  I think the Independent wins in Nebraska.  I'd love to see Cruz and Scott lose in Texas and Florida.  Not likely but not out of the realm of the possible.  Oy.

The House?  Since I think Harris is going to do quite well in the general election, I think the Dems pick up the House.

 PS I didn't mention the Arab American vote because it is not a cause for optimism.  I have no idea how they will break at the end.  All I do know is that Trump would be far more awful for that community in the US and would not be any better and probably worse on Gaza/Palestine than Harris.  But these folks are rightly angry about the US arming Israel's disproportionate response to Oct 7.  Oh, and the Jewish vote?  Probably not moving radically in one direction or another despite the GOP being the party of far right anti-semitism, which is far more dangerous than left-wing, students protesting Israel.

 

 

Here Be Dragons: Driving Into The Swing State in October

 I just came back from my high school reunion in suburban Philly, and, oh my, I feel sorry for those living in a swing state, especially this one.  Just so many ads on the radio and on tv, so many hateful Trump signs.

The juxtaposition of Harris and Trump ads, as well as those for and against the Senate candidates, is striking.  Harris's ads vary from positive to negative, while Trump's are pure venom with one exception.  The exception is the laughable sign on the highway that Trump has, is, and will fight for all Americans.  Unless he defines American narrowly, this was pure bs, especially after the stuff came out about his unwillingness to fund relief efforts in California after a natural disaster there until his staff showed how many Republicans there were in these places.

The Harris ads generally had more policy bite to them--about minimum wage, protecting social security, tax credits for new parents and homeowners.  The main negative one I heard several times was suggesting that if one is driving an Astin Martin or another expensive vehicle, Harris isn't for them, and then there was a snide driveby about cybertrucks.  

The Trump ads were pure xenophobia and fear mongering about the border with a few hitting Harris on changing positions and taking her quotes out of context.  Just heaps and heaps of stuff about "illegals" and border crisis.  I get that this works among the GOP in Pennsylvania who, last I checked, are not affected by stuff on the border, but hate knows no boundaries.

I did see more Trump signs than Harris, and the Trump fans had to have the biggest and most numerous signs on their lawns while Harris fans tended have just one moderately sized sign.  And, yes, the bigger houses with the bigger lawns were the ones that tended to have Trump signs because you now this is all really about economic frustration... sure.  

Of course, this could be my confirmation bias kicking in.  All I know is that my desire to embrace nostalgia by listening to the same rock station I listened to 40-45 years ago (WMMR!) was squashed by the flood of campaign ads.  Again, for me, this was just a quick dip into this swing state.  I don't recall more than one or two billboards in NY.  But PA, oh my.  Perhaps the proliferation of pot dispensaries is easing the pain of the residents of this swing state.

Priced In Means What?

 Trump's debacle at Arlington National Cemetery.  Wow.  So, the question is whether it moves the needle or not.  I argued on bluesky:

The basic idea is that we all know that Trump is a thoroughly awful human being, and what I mean by priced in is that either one hates him and will vote against him (if one turns out) or one doesn't care/doesn't believe/loves him and vote for him (if one turns out).  We have plenty of evidence that accumulates on a daily basis.  How much more can folks with some sense of decency be repulsed by this guy?  Those who want him in power because they resent (insert group here) don't care or don't believe the crap that he does.  Or maybe they don't see it because of Fox blindness or whatever bubble they live in. 

The best counter-point I got (thanks, Marcy) is that the newer voters don't know about this stuff--they were 10 years old in 2016.  Fair point.  And the media keeps treating Trump like a new candidate rather than focusing on what he did as President--risking wars, appointing perjurious SCOTUS justices who ditched Roe v Wade, engaged in all kinds of corruption and abuse of power (remember that first impeachment trial), Muslim ban, etc. So, yes, new news about Trump's current depraved behavior may resonate some among younger voters.  

But then again, usually, there aren't that many younger voters, and they aren't the ones talking to us on social media.  So, my comments about priced in largely target most voters--that their preferences will not be altered.  Either you want democracy and personal freedom or you want power and graft.  Or one has so thoroughly been radicalized that no proof will shake their faith in Trump.  I also recognize that much of the media is invested in keeping Trump alive in this race. 

Of course, the margins may matter in this election (I am starting to think this election may not be so close--a post for another day). So additional offensive behavior, such as shitting on veterans and those who lost their lives fighting America's wars, may move the needle just a smidge and that might make all the difference. 

Will new outbursts of Trump's racism and misogyny and homophobia (he is increasing his trans bullshit) and Vance's history of abhorrent statements dripping out each day matter?  I really do hope so.  I am just so tired of all of this, and I recognize that the polarization of our times means that most people have already decided who they are going to vote for now that, well, Biden is out of the way. I hope the sharpness of the Dem campaign matters, and I hope the incompetence of the Trump campaign matters.  

Can anything happen now to shake up the race?  A bad debate performance by Harris?  Probably not as much as Biden's because it won't confirm people's fears about her being unqualified for office.  Would a Trump disaster at a debate matter?  Maybe as it could cause a cascade of people losing faith?  One of the key things Trump has got going for him is his continued menace--that people are afraid to stand up to him because his supporters engage in political violence.  Maybe if Trump displays his dementia at the debate, it might cause the rats to leave the sinking ship.  But I doubt it because cognitive closure remains pretty powerful.  People hate admitting they are wrong (except me, I admit I am wrong all the time).  So, again, I am not sure anything can happen that will shake things up unless the FBI announces they are investigating Harris a week before the election.  Of course, they would never do that....

And, yet, despite how much I think all of this is already set, I follow the Harris/Walz campaign, I think their social media game is good (I thought the same of Hillary's... oy), and I applaud friends and relatives who are knocking on doors, sending postcards, making calls.  This is inconsistent, but then why shouldn't I embrace the moment, just as "Christians" keep supporting a twice-divorced, philandering, grifting gambler.

To sum up, it comes down to this, ultimately.  Either you believe another Trump term will be catastrophic or you want him to use the power of the state to oppress large swaths of the American people.  So, how much will assaulting staff at Arlington move the needle?

Why Trump is Bad For Civil-Military Relations

I wrote a lot during the Trump Administration about how his speeches and policies and such were a frequent challenge to good civil-military relations (here, here, here) and not just me (see this and this).  He delegated too much to the military, he didn't take responsibility when things went awry, he tried to make the military an ally in his partisan activities, and on and on.

Well, deja vu.  Trump went to Arlington Cemetery, presumably to do some cleanup work after once again trashing those wounded or killed in service of their country when he talked about the Presidential Medal of Freedom being equal to or superior to the Congressional Medal of Honor.  As it turns out, there are laws prohibiting the use of Arlington Cemetery for political ads.  The staff there confronted Trump's team, saying that they could not pose for pictures.  They pushed the staffer aside, took the pics (thumbs up at a cemetery?), and now the Army, which administers the cemetery is in a difficult spot.

The Army could have remained silent, which would have been a way to duck the controversy but would have made the Army look as if it were complicit.  Instead, the Army issued a "rebuke" as the journalists put it.  The Army stood behind the staffer who would not press charges for fear of being subject to Trumpist political violence.  So, instead of being viewed as complicit, the army will be viewed as being too woke and siding with the Democrats.

This is the politicization that folks (me, among others) have been yammering about.  Michael Robinson, in his book, argues that even if an actor stands still, it can be seen as moving towards or away from other political actors as those others move and take positions that change the perspectives on where the first actor stands.  The Army was damned either way, as the reality around it shifted, putting it either closer to Trump or closer to his adversaries, even if the Army did not move at all.

This cemetery-gate is just the latest example of this.  And, yes, if Trump becomes President, he would likely sack the Army Chief of Staff for letting the Army issue this statement and try to put into that position and the other key military spots supplicants who would be more inclined to support Trump even if he breaks laws and traditions and norms.

To be absolutely clear, the US military has no role in deciding who wins the election.  It is our job to vote against Trump to prevent further challenges to the norms of civil-military relations that largely keep the military out of partisan battles. While there are many reasons to vote against Trump and for Kamala Harris, including the fact that Trump has no sense of decency as this episode reminds us, taking civil-military relations off of the front page is a good one, even if that were not as helpful for us civ-mil scholars who seek grant money.

And, yes, this whole episode makes Kamala Harris's convention speech all the more on target:

Centrism, Centerism, and Polarization: Don't Expect Kamala Harris to Swerve to the Center

 Don't expect Kamala Harris to swerve to the center.  Why not?  Because she is already there.  One of the greatest fallacies of our time is that the Dems have shifted to the left of the American people.  Tis one reason why I find the term polarization to be so troubling.*  Not all parties have fled to the middle--just the GOP, which has moved further and further to the right wing, running against policies and overturning policies that have widespread support among Americans.  

Here's just one stunning example: the GOP has become pro-child labor. WTF?

On most major issues, the Dems are solidly in the middle.  On health care?  Yep, Americans want government to play a major role. ACA is popular which is why the GOP fought so hard against it. Abortion?  We know Americans don't support the radical GOP stances. Homophobia?  Americans are against it, and we could see that by how much the Dems talk about letting people love who they want. Taxing the rich? Ha.  No-fault divorce?  I am not going to bother looking up polling for that because ... duh.

Project 2025 is wildly unpopular, so much so that the GOP is now running away from it.  Good luck with that.  

So, what is the center of the political system?  Where the Democrats stand, even "hey, let's feed the kids" leftie Tim Walz.  Seriously, what is wrong with feeding the kids at school?  Anyhow, centerism is the pundit/media/whoever effort to try to get the Dems to compromise with the GOP. I illustrated it thusly:

 

To get all math-y, the Dems are at the median vote, which is where a party wants to be in the American political system.  The GOP wants to disenfranchise people because it can't appeal to the media voter--the whole #voterfraudfraud thing is such a tell--that the GOP is not anywhere near the middle.  Being halfway between, averaging the stances of the two parties, is centerism--that we need to get to being between the two parties.  Why?  Why should the Dems compromise on their values?  If the GOP stands for xenophobia and rounding up tens of millions of Americans, should the Dems compromise and stand for rounding up only a few million?  If the GOP wants to get rid of no-fault divorce, how should the Dems compromise on that?  Please tell me.  Compromising on IVF means what exactly.  How anti-trans should the Dems be so they can be halfway between where they are now and the GOP?  

Which gets to another dynamic?  If the Dems moved to be halfway to the GOP, they would then be asked what?  To move again to be halfway, to keep compromising their values and alienating their voters to get closer and closer to the GOP.  

The Supreme Court is now wildly unpopular.  Project 2025 is wildly unpopular.  Last I checked, the political science says for politicians to pick popular positions. Since the Dems are standing exactly where the public is, why the hell should it move?

Ah, I am old enough to remember Kamala Harris being criticized for being too moderate for the Dems.  Has she moved?  Perhaps a bit, but the American people have as well.  American politics is in part finding the center, and in part moving the public to where you want the center to be.  The GOP wants the public to move to the right.  Reagan was very successful at this (which is why he ain't anywhere close to "best president of my lifetime"), making government unpopular.  After a pandemic (well, not so much after since covid is still going around), many people greatly appreciate what good government does.  We see it in outcomes--the death rates are worse in states led by Republicans.  Policy matters!  And more Americans get it than don't.  

So, Kamala Harris picked a guy who was a reservist, comes from rural America, who not only has guns but shoots them very well, who coached football.  Who supports LGBTQ folks to be their true selves. Oh noes!!!  How radical!  Nope, not at all.  While the NYT wants folks to fear trans people, it just ain't so among the average Americans.  Walz is an authentic, very decent person.  No wonder the the WSJ and its ilk can't stand him.  Great choice, shows great judgment.  Unlike, say, JD Vance.

*  One last thing on polarization--no, it is not both parties spinning away from the center--just one.  But we are all now more partisan in the rest of our lives.  That liberal women don't want to date conservative men.  Oh noes, not fair.  It is not because the women don't want to argue about inheritance taxes or supply side economics.  Straight women and gay men want to date men who treat them as equals.  So, even in this, the GOP dudes have shifted away from the realm of the date-able because of what they have done and what they say.  Incels by choice?  Kind of.  To put it most extremely, women don't want to date Nazis unless they themselves are Nazis.  Which is why people are mystified by Usha Vance, as her Great Replacement husband espouses views that should cause women and women of color in particular to flee.

To sum up: the Dems have chosen the middle because it is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do (the joy of heterogeneous coalitions may be that they force not moderation so much as empathy), and the GOP has pushed itself further and further outside the range of, yes, the normal American. Their positions are weird.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategy, Nature, or Trap? Trump, Vance, and the Party of Racism

 Of course, the answer is:

I have written about ethnic outbidding here--that politicians competing for the same ethnic group will outbid each other to be the best supporter of that group (it was also a key dynamic for my dissertation and first two books)--and how that explains why Trump was successful in 2015/6 to get the nomination.  

The recents shambolic appearance at the conference of Black Journalists may not have been peak Trump racism but was probably pretty close and was definitely a condensed form, questioning Kamala's Black identity, ranting about Black jobs, and the rest.  Was he playing to his base by being racist to a room full of Black people or could he just not help himself because he is racist through and through?  The answer is almost certainly yes.

Why did he go to a hostile crowd? An irony given his Indian or Black take is that these people at this conference have two identities simultaneously: Black and journalist.  Trump has always had contempt for both Black people and journalists, so the move to show up there was strategy--it was a deliberate effort to do something.  What?  Damned if I know.  To put out a white supremacist message to his base?  Maybe.  To try to persuade some Blacks that Kamala Harris is not a real Black person?  That might have been strategy informed by racism--that he and his team are so racist they thought that might work a bit?  I am not so sure.  

It is hard to tell because, of course, one can be a poor strategist, and racism can make one a poor strategist.  But in the moment, it is clear that Trump is a racist to his bones.  The idea that he can say who is and who is not Black?  Jeez.  

Something that can be a bit more enlightening or educational: that JD Vance had to go along with this even though he is married to an Indian woman.  So, are his kids white or Indian?  Getting back to ethnic outbidding, it is a dynamic that becomes a trap.  That appealing on the basis of a particular identity to a specific homogeneous group becomes hard to escape, even if one wanted to, as it mobilizes and incites the extremists who then criticize almost every moderating move as a betrayal.  So, JD Vance is now trapped--that he must betray his family, whether they understand that or not.

Of course, I expect JD Vance or Trump to express as much remorse as Voldemort or JK Rowling might.  They are exemplars of the party of resentment, the party that lacks empathy.  But the siren song of resentment as strategy can lead to much damage, not just to the targets of resentment but those who embrace it. Trump's support has a hard ceiling--he only wins if the Dems don't turn out--and his latest burst of racism is probably going to lower that ceiling somewhat as there are a whole lot of people who identify with more than one race, and some of them are "independents" who always vote Republican and some are Republicans.  

Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.  All I am sure of is this race is going to get uglier.