The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Wants You to Know That the Winds They are A-Changin’
WSJ Editorial Board: A Shock to the GOP From MAGA Country: A county that went for Trump by 16 points swings to Democrats.
The Editorial Board writes,
Democrats have been lost in the wilderness since Donald Trump’s victory, but if Tuesday’s special election shocker in Pennsylvania is any harbinger, the MAGA Republican ascendancy is perishable. In Lancaster County, which went for Mr. Trump last year by 16 points, Democrats flipped a state Senate seat that the GOP had occupied for decades. …
[N]ationalizing relatively sleepy local races can be politically effective, and Democrats hope to do the same thing next week in Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court election, and in two special elections for open U.S. House seats in Florida.
Voter turnout in such races can be considerably smaller than in November, so the results aren’t always predictive. …
Still, Republicans might want to take this surprise loss in MAGA country as a warning. Mr. Trump’s tariff threats are whipsawing financial markets and the broader economy. The Conference Board said Tuesday that its survey of consumer confidence showed a drop in March, for the fourth consecutive month. Even voters who like the GOP’s policy agenda could be jolted by the impression of chaos in Washington, plus Mr. Trump’s recent focus on retribution.
Democrats got pummeled last year because they followed out-of-touch leaders down ideological rabbit holes. Republicans will suffer if they do the same thing in reverse.
Paul Weiss Redux—Questions to Ponder
My Answers Will Come in later Posts. Meanwhile, Please Ponder The Questions.
A deeply researched article on the goings on at Paul Weiss, based on lots of things, including the thoughts of the firm’s managing partner, who tries to tell his side of the story.
Wall Street Journal, Why Law Firm Paul Weiss Pleaded Its Case With Trump, and Not With a Court: Firm’s decision to cut deal with Trump shocked legal industry bracing for more executive orders.
Open Letter on the Rule of Law from Big Law Firm Associates
Washington Post, New Trump memo seen as threat to lawyers, attempt to scare off lawsuits
Questions
Here are some questions. (As I said, I’ll give my personal answers in later posts; others may have different answers than mine.)
Is the “agreement” between Trump and Paul Weiss legally enforceable—and does it even purport to be legally enforceable?
What did Paul Weiss actually “agree” to do?
What lies did Trump tell about the “agreement”?
In addition to the points in the agreement, what points are missing? In other words, what hound dogs are not barking in the night?
When the managing partner of Paul Weiss walked out of his meeting with Mango Mussolini, did the said managing partner think, “Man o man, did I just snooker Trump”?
What did Trump actually want from the “agreement,” and did he actually get the thing that he actually wanted?
Did Mr. Karp, Paul Weiss’s managing partner, overlook the forest for the trees?
Big law firms like Paul Weiss compete in three important dimensions. (1) They compete for the business of rich clients with legal issues. (2) They compete for associates (salaried junior lawyers); central to their business model is hiring able associates, paying them a lot of money—i.e., buying their time at wholesale—and then marking up their time to sell at retail, at exorbitant hourly rates. (3) They compete to steal partners with good “books of business” from other firms, and they strive to keep the partners they have from walking out the door. How will the Trump “agreement” impact Paul Weiss’s ability to engage effectively in these three modes of competition?
Paul Weiss probably expects to hire several dozen new associates from the graduating law class of 2025. How will the Trump “agreement” affect the thinking of those potential new hires? How will it affect their incentives to join—or not to join—Paul Weiss? How many of the 2025 law grads who have Paul Weiss offers are actually going to show up at the firm this summer? How many will decide to look for work elsewhere?
Would it be in the collective self-interest of the big firms to take the “Trump factor” out of their competition for corporate business, their competition for able associates, and their competition for partners?
In the next two weeks or so, is Paul Weiss likely to turn around and modify its position?
If a lot of the big firms decide, on reflection, that they would collectively be better off to stand together against Trump, what steps might they take to implement that decision?
In the next two weeks or so, is it likely that many of the big law firms will come to the epiphany that they need—in their own stone cold self-interest—to take collective action to support the rule of law?
Is Perkins Coie likely to win or lose in its lawsuit against Trump—and would one or more amicus briefs likely affect the outcome substantially?
President Lizard Brain seems to think he can head off the lawsuits against him—there are now well over a hundred, and he’s losing most of them—by punishing the lawyers who represent plaintiffs with legal positions adverse to him. But is there in fact there a constitutional right to sue? And does a litigant have a legal right to counsel of their choice? And is it lawful for the government to punish someone for exercising a constitutional right?
Is collective action against Trump by the major law firms a matter of life and death for democracy and the rule of law, or is it more like Kabuki theater?
If rule of law is ultimately to be preserved, what three factors will achieve the preservation?
And apart from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Trump’s Authoritarian Playbook: Sadism Toward Your Own Base
Stephen I. Vladeck (N.Y. Times), The Courts Alone Can’t Save Us
Plus: Did someone say “tariffs”?
My strong sense is that Trump’s mental illness has advanced to the stage where his situational awareness is severely, severely diminished. As so many have noted, he does indeed have an authoritarian playbook. But it’s not the playbook of a rational wannabe authoritarian.
Perhaps through confirmation bias, this afternoon I call your attention to Amanda Taub’s essay, which draws a sharp contrast between Trump’s approach and that of the dictators presiding over Hungary and Turkey.
Trump—and his MiniMes like Rep. Hageman of Wyoming—seem to think that their own base are a bunch of masochists.
Trump’s Right About One Thing: Only Trump Can Fix It
An authoritarian playbook based on madness and sadism toward your own supporters is a dog that won’t hunt.
Trump is right. The one person who can defeat Donald Trump—the one person who is going to defeat Donald Trump—is none other than Mango Mussolini himself.
All Hail Mango Mussolini, savior of the Republic.
The Big, Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs: An Allegory for Our Time
No doubt as to who the Big Bad Wolf is.
Notice, please, that the Big Bad Wolf has only two ways of getting what he wants. The first is that he huffs and he puffs and he blows things down.
Huffing and puffing works fine on the First Little Pig, who built his house from straw—and even on the Second Little Pig, who chose wood as his building material. But huffing and puffing has no effect on the Third Little Pig, who used bricks to build his house.
The Big Bad Wolf’s second and last technique is telling lies. We don’t know whether the lies would have worked on the first two pigs, because they succumbed to the huffing and puffing—and got eaten—even before the Wolf had to resort to mendacity.
As to the Third Little Pig, not only does he build a brick house—and thus survive all the huffing and puffing—but he also responds to the Wolf’s bullshit with effective counterstrategy. And, so, at the end of the day, it’s the Big Bad Wolf who gets eaten, not the Third Little Pig.
One might say that the Third Little Pig knows his Sunzi:
Know yourself.
Know the enemy.
Hundred battles.
No peril.
As I said, we know who the Big Bad Wolf stands for.
The First Little Pig stands for the Republican members of the House and Senate. They are afraid of their constituents. Many of them are unintelligent and gullible. The others, the ones who understand what’s going on, do not have the character and moral courage to do their jobs. As the poet said, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
And so, the house made of straw stands for our first branch of government, the United States Congress.
The Second Little Pig and his house of wood stand for those parts of our institutions that are made of somewhat sterner stuff than the house of straw, but that still succumb to the huffing and puffing. Think of Jeff Bezos as the Second Little Pig and the Washington Post as the wooden house.
The Third Little Pig and his brick house stand for those of us who’re going to survive this shitstorm. We go into battle armed with skill, flexibility, and moral conviction. In the end, it will be the Big, Bad Wolf who winds up in the pot. Not us.
In the Cold Light of Morning: A Government Shutdown Would Have Been the Wrong Hill to Die On
To begin with, and for what little it’s worth, I want to be recorded as deploring the instinct to try to win a difficult argument by resorting to ad hominem slurs—“He’s a coward!”—against folks who disagree with you. It’s entirely illogical. It is an extraordinarily poor way to think yourself out of a hard problem. And it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
So please don’t do it.
If you think Chuck Schumer’s analysis is wrong, fine, but explain why.
If you think my points are wrong, fine, but explain why. Don’t hurl ad hominem slurs.
Now to the main points, which are five.
First, a shutdown would have given extraordinary new powers to the president. See, for example, N.Y. Times, The Democratic Divide: Would a Shutdown Have Helped or Hurt Trump?
Second, as sure as God made little green apples, Trump and his minions would have used those extraordinary powers as tools to wreck the federal government.
Third, and relatedly, the extraordinary legal powers that the law purports to confer on the president during a shutdown would have been used to give what lawyers call the “color of law” to Trump’s wrecking ball. Our side is winning in court on Trump’s abuse of power. We don’t want to give ourselves another legal hoop to jump through.
Fourth, a government shutdown would have supplied Trump and his minions with a splendid “argument” to further confuse an already confused public. “It’s not Trump who’s causing your pain,” they would scream, “it’s those damn Democrats who shut down the government.”
With no government shutdown, ALL THE CHAOS IS ON TRUMP AND HIS ENABLERS.
Fifth, because of points one, two, three, and four, there would be little incentive for Trump and the Republicans to negotiate to get out of the shutdown.
A shutdown is to the Trumpistas as the briar patch was to Brer Rabbit.
After Uncle Remus, Let Us Share a Few Words from Ancient China
知己知彼，百戰不殆。
Know yourself.
Know your enemy.
Hundred battles.
No danger.
Yesterday, I heard a talking head on the internet cite a purported academic study considering who is most likely to survive a catastrophe. Answer: it’s the person who can, most quickly, form an adequate assessment of the actual situation they are in.
Yeah, I heard it on the internet, so it must be true.
By the way, I gave you, above, an accurate character-by-character translation of the famous quote from Sunzi. Some people translate the whole thing to imply that you will win all one hundred battles. That’s a legitimate translation, but, personally, I suspect it’s not quite what Sunzi meant. I think he meant that you may lose some battles but that, after the war has run its full course, if you have been situationally aware, then final victory will be yours.
Donald Trump as Brer Rabbit, the Government Shutdown as the Briar Patch
From the original Uncle Remus stories:
“Den Brer Rabbit talk mighty ‘umble.
“‘I don’t keer w’at you do wid me, Brer Fox,’ sezee, ‘so you don’t fling me in dat brier-patch. Roas’ me, Brer Fox’ sezee, ‘but don’t fling me in dat brierpatch,’ sezee.
“‘Hit’s so much trouble fer ter kindle a fier,’ sez Brer Fox, sezee, ‘dat I speck I’ll hatter hang you,’ sezee.
“‘Hang me des ez high as you please, Brer Fox,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, ‘but do fer de Lord’s sake don’t fling me in dat brier- patch,’ sezee.
“‘I ain’t got no string,’ sez Brer Fox, sezee, ‘en now I speck I’ll hatter drown you,’ sezee.
“‘Drown me des ez deep ez you please, Brer Fox,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, ‘but do don’t fling me in dat brier-patch,’ sezee.
“‘Dey ain’t no water nigh,’ sez Brer Fox, sezee, ‘en now I speck I’ll hatter skin you,’ sezee.
“‘Skin me, Brer Fox,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, ‘snatch out my eyeballs, t’ar out my years by de roots, en cut off my legs,’ sezee, ‘but do please, Brer Fox, don’t fling me in dat brier- patch,’ sezee.
“Co’se Brer Fox wanter hurt Brer Rabbit bad ez he kin, so he cotch ‘im by de behime legs en slung ‘im right in de middle er de brier-patch. Dar wuz a considerbul flutter whar Brer Rabbit struck de bushes, en Brer Fox sorter hang ‘roun’ fer ter see w’at wuz gwineter happen. Bimeby he hear somebody call ‘im, en way up de hill he see Brer Rabbit settin’ crosslegged on a chinkapin log koamin’ de pitch outen his har wid a chip. Den Brer Fox know dat he bin swop off mighty bad. Brer Rabbit wuz bleedzed fer ter fling back some er his sass, en he holler out:
“‘Bred en bawn in a brier-patch, Brer Fox—bred en bawn in a brier-patch!’ en wid dat he skip out des ez lively ez a cricket in de embers.”
The Case Against Schumer’s Position on the Shutdown
Compare Senator Schumer Makes His Case Against a Shutdown
Fair and balanced blogging, ladies and germs. Fair and Balanced
The View from 30,000 Feet: A Psychiatrist’s Analysis of our Current Psychoses
Russell Razzaque, M.D., a psychiatrist, earned his medical degree at the University of London. More on him here.
I find his psychiatric analysis of voter insecurities to be persuasive and enlightening. Take a look, and judge for yourself.
Facing MAGA 