With clear eyes, hard facts, critical thinking, new political strategy, empathy, and a soupçon of Schadenfreude
Category: Situational Awareness
Posts about the situation we are in–the good facts, the bad facts, and the terrible facts. Facts that, if taken on board, will let us “know ourselves, know the other side” and go on to win those hundred battles.
Professor Sunstein, a distinguished public intellectual, teaches law at Harvard. As I often remark: you can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.
In this guest essay in the New York Times, Sunstein brilliantly covers a whole lot of ground and explains a whole lot of political theory and history, in a way that an ordinary educated person can readily understand.
Bottom line: full presidential control over all aspects of the federal executive is not, contrary to claims of some, mandated by the text of the Constitution or by our history. Such massive control poses many, many dangers.
Professor Sunstein is a polite person, so he did not say, in so many words, that presidential dictatorial powers given to a crazed monomaniac would likely produce disastrous results.
Bad as the unitary executive theory, read broadly, would be, Trump is also pursuing other ideas that are even worse. Sunstein writes,
[C]onsider the claim that the president gets to impound congressionally appropriated funds and choose which ones to spend. That claim would render Congress subordinate to the executive in what might be its most fundamental power: the purse. Impoundment authority, on the part of the president, would go well beyond the idea of a unitary executive. It would be a devastating blow to the separation of powers.
He did not add—but might well have added—that the notion that the president gets to pick and choose which court orders he obeys would likewise end the constitutional republic, and that right soon.
A Wall Street Journal editorial slamming Donald Trump’s tariff plans as terrible for the US economy and auto industry prompted a broadside from the president on Wednesday followed by threats to sue the media.
In an opinion piece titled Trump’s Tariffs Will Punish Michigan, the Journal argued Trump’s tariff plans would harm “US auto workers and Republican prospects in Michigan”.
Trump has threatened to impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, a move the editorial argues would increase US vehicle prices, hurt auto workers and advantage Asian and European manufacturers.
“If the goal is to harm US auto workers and Republican prospects in Michigan, then by all means go ahead, Mr President,” wrote the Journal.
On his social media site, Truth Social, Trump wrote the Journal is “soooo wrong”. “The tariffs will drive massive amounts of auto manufacturing to MICHIGAN, a State which I just easily one [sic] in the Presidential Election,” he wrote.
Trump followed the rebuttal with a threat to those publishing “Fake books and stories with the so-called ‘anonymous’, or ‘off the record’, quotes” criticizing the opening month of his second presidency.
“At some point I am going to sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general, to find out whether or not these ‘anonymous sources’ even exist, which they largely do not. They are made up, defamatory fiction, and a big price should be paid for this blatant dishonesty. I’ll do it as a service to our Country. Who knows, maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!,” he wrote.
The Journal’s conservative editorial board has been a persistent critic of Trump’s tariff plans, calling them “the dumbest trade war in history” earlier this month.
Some websites aim to capture anti-Trumpers’ clicks with screaming headlines—“Trump Slides Downhill!” “Trump Humiliates Himself!” etc. etc. But I find The Bulwark’s presentations more objective, and much more useful in understanding what is actually happening, as compared with the rosy scenario sites. Besides, this video is entertaining too.
Friends, let’s never lose our sense of humor. Because the loss of our sense of humor would make it a lot harder to survive this shitshow.
Last night’s nonbinding budget resolution directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in budget cuts, over the coming decade, from the programs which that committee oversees. According to Newsweek today,
Trump has said multiple times that Medicaid would not be affected, telling Fox News last week that it would not be “touched.”
But the House Energy and Commerce Committee would have to find this money, out of Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
If the committee takes its cuts from everything that is not health care, reducing this spending to $0, it would still be more than $600 billion short, according to analysis by The New York Times.
I tried, without success, to get a definitive answer as to what percentage of Medicaid funding would be lost if $880 billion were cut over a ten-year period. That’s a hard number to find for various reasons, including the fact that there will be lots of political back-and-forth about spending levels over the next decade.
Even so, there’s no doubt that $880 billion is a nice chunk of change.
On the one hand, clearly, axing $880 billion will let a whole lot of Medicaid spending continue. On the other hand, and equally as clear, decreasing funding by $880 billion would most assuredly “touch” Medicaid, contrary to Trump’s promise.
And who would be hurt as and when Medicaid is in fact “touched”?
According to a reliable source, for the year 2023, there were 24,046,700 white people under the age of 65 enrolled in Medicaid. In other words, the 24 million poor white Medicaid recipients don’t count all the white grandmas who have run through their savings and are relying on Medicaid to stay in their nursing homes.
Poor people supported Trump disproportionately in 2024. White people supported Trump disproportionately in 2024. And if you look at the combined category—poor AND white—they were mostly Trump supporters.
But it was still a close election. And the number of poor white folks who will feel pain from significant Medicaid cuts vastly exceeds Trump’s tiny margin of victory.
This is a very long article from the New York Times magazine. It takes 53 ½ minutes to read it aloud. (If you would like to hear it, go here.) In support of the thesis that is the headline of this post, the article covers a great deal of ground (geographically and historically), is well researched, and argues the case in great detail.
If you think that all US working class anti-immigrant feeling is grounded in simple racism—if you believe that the Democratic Party’s position on borders is coherent, well advised, and politically saleable—then I challenge you to read this article, consider it carefully, and articulate wherein you think it goes astray.
A central focus is the anomalous continuing political success of Denmark’s Social Democratic Party. Leonhardt writes,
Since the Social Democrats took power in 2019, they have compiled a record that resembles the wish list of a liberal American think tank. They changed pension rules to enable blue-collar workers to retire earlier than professionals. On housing, the party fought speculation by the private-equity industry by enacting the so-called Blackstone law, a reference to the giant New York-based firm that had bought beloved Copenhagen apartment buildings; the law restricts landlords from raising rents for five years after buying a property. To fight climate change, [Prime Minister] Frederiksen’s government created the world’s first carbon tax on livestockand passed a law that requires 15 percent of farmland to become natural habitat. On reproductive rights, Denmark last year expanded access to abortionthrough the first 18 weeks of pregnancy, up from 12 weeks, and allowed girls starting at age 15 to get an abortion without parental consent.
All the while, the country continues to provide its famous welfare state, which includes free education through college (including a monthly stipend of about $900 for living expenses), free medical care and substantial unemployment insurance, while nonetheless being home to globally competitive companies like Novo Nordisk, the maker of the anti-obesity drug Ozempic. In 2022, Frederiksen won a second term, defying the anti-incumbent mood that has ousted incumbent parties elsewhere since the Covid pandemic. As part of her success, she has marginalized the far right in her country.
But there is one issue on which Frederiksen and her party take a very different approach from most of the global left: immigration. Nearly a decade ago, after a surge in migration caused by wars in Libya and Syria, she and her allies changed the Social Democrats’ position to be much more restrictive. They called for lower levels of immigration, more aggressive efforts to integrate immigrants and the rapid deportation of people who enter illegally. While in power, the party has enacted these policies. Denmark continues to admit immigrants, and its population grows more diverse every year. But the changes are happening more slowly than elsewhere. …
Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, [the prime minister] explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.
“There is a price to pay when too many people enter your society,” Frederiksen told me. “Those who pay the highest price of this, it’s the working class or lower class in the society. It is not — let me be totally direct — it’s not the rich people. It is not those of us with good salaries, good jobs.” She kept coming back to the idea that the Social Democrats did not change their position for tactical reasons; they did so on principle. They believe that high immigration helps cause economic inequality and that progressives should care above all about improving life for the most vulnerable members of their own society. The party’s position on migration “is not an outlier,” she told me. “It is something we do because we actually believe in it.”
In many ways, as of the last week in February, it feels as if we are all taking a trip on the Titanic, fast approaching that iceberg. Take for example the New York Times piece from today. I don’t disagree with a word in it.
Our situation is dire, in so many ways that it’s difficult to count all of them. But … I really hope you can spare a few minutes to watch Rick Wilson’s video, to supply some needed perspective.
And permit me to supplement Wilson’s take in the following way. Begin with several things we know for sure, or at least to a very high level of confidence, about how events are going to evolve over the next few weeks.
Five Things We Know for Sure, or at Least to a High Level of Confidence
1. Trump, Elon Musk, and their henchmen remain high on their own supply. In very important ways, they literally do not know what they are doing. In many ways, they don’t know the harm they are causing (or are about to cause) in the lives of their own supporters. In many ways, they have a fundamental misperception of public opinion. (Yeah, lot of that going around.)
2. Trump and his crew will continue to wreck the federal government, which will produce ever increasing levels of mayhem.
3. Trump and his crew will do jack shit to combat inflation, in violation of the one campaign promise that put him over the top in 2024.
4. The process of wrecking the federal government will culminate—in maybe a month, or it could be sooner—in a true constitutional crisis, where Trump openly defies the Supreme Court.
5. Any of several pending foreign policy crises will ripen into disaster. In particular, just as Biden had his Afghanistan moment, so Trump is probably going to have his Ukraine moment.
Now, Let Us Hazard a Cautious Prediction
Here is the prediction:
While we cannot predict the outcome when all of these situations ripen into disaster at more or less the same time, we can say with some confidence that the five trends will interact with each other.
To take an example: The number of people who might be willing, in good times, to acquiesce in Trump’s overthrow of the rule of law is smaller than the number of people who will cheer when he defies the Supreme Court at the same time that he is royally screwing over the folks who voted for him. And, at the same time, selling out America’s allies and cheering on a Russian invasion.
The opinion, issued on February 19, denied the Justice Department’s “emergency” request for the appeals court to overrule a district judge’s injunction against Trump’s executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship, despite the language of the Fourteenth Amendment and despite consistent judicial interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, going back to 1898. (If anyone cares, that district judge, who reamed out Trump and his Justice Department, was appointed by President Reagan.)
To be clear, the district court’s ruling in question was not the judge’s definitive answer to the question whether Trump was right or wrong on birthright citizenship. It was, instead, a decision ordering a “preliminary injunction” pending full briefing, trial, and argument of the case.
Brushing away lots of legalese, the central issues at play when a judge rules on a request for a preliminary injunction are three:
the “likelihood of success on the merits,” in other words, what does the judge think will probably happen when all the dust settles: Is the plaintiff more likely to win, or is it the defendant who will probably prevail? and, second,
the harm issue—will the plaintiff be harmed if a preliminary injunction is not issued to preserve the state of play, while the issue is litigated? Or is it the defendant who will suffer harm if it is enjoined from doing what it wants to do?
the public interest issue—apart from the parties to the case, what about the broader public?
In my experience, the first of these factors—“likelihood of success on the merits”—tends to be dispositive. And so it was here. Two of the three panel members of the appellate panel, Judge William Canby (appointed by Carter) and Milan Smith (appointed by Bush the Elder), joined in a terse, one page decision, declining to overrule the district court, because Team Trump did not make a “strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits.”
The third judge, Danielle J. Forrest, wrote a much more expansive piece of prose, concurring in the majority’s bottom line result, but “for reasons different than relied on” by the other two members of the panel.
Many are wondering how the Federalist Society judges, who now bestride the third branch of our federal government, will deal with Team Trump. What the Supreme Court does with birthright citizenship remains to be seen. But Judge Forrest’s treatment of the case is not without interest.
A bit of background: Judge Danielle Forrest was appointed to the bench in 2019, during Trump 1.0. Reading between the lines of her Wikipedia biography, I glean that Democratic opposition to her appointment was weak, probably on the ground that, “Well, this is about the best we can expect from a Trump appointment.”
Interestingly, her Wikipedia entry says, in black and white, that “She was a member of the Federalist Society from 2002 to 2006 and again from 2017 to present.” One might wonder whether her renewed commitment to the Federalist Society in 2017 might have had something to do with a desire for higher office—given that Trump 1.0 farmed out the judicial selection function to the esteemed Society. That said, in any event …
In her six pages of prose, Judge Forrest manfully eschewed any views on the “likelihood of success on the merits”—in other words, whether birthright citizenship is found in the Constitution, or whether it isn’t.
Instead, the very large burr in her saddle was the purported “emergency” referenced by Team Trump. The implication is that birthright citizenship has been the law of the land ever since 1866 or 1898, depending on how you count. Letting it be the law of the land for a few more weeks, or a few more months, is in no way an emergency.
And just because Team Trump SAYS there’s an emergency does not mean there REALLY IS an emergency.
In short, for this one Federalist Society jurisprude, Team Trump’s legal Shock and Awe is really Shock and Awful.
In this video, the two talking heads cover a whole lot of ground. I mostly agree with them. If you don’t, then God bless, and have a nice day.
Toward the end, they turn to trying to suss out what’s going on in Trump’s brain. I particularly commend that part of the video.
In case you don’t know:
Rick Wilson is a former Republican and former Republican political consultant. He currently writes political opinion pieces and is a political talking head on YouTube and elsewhere. He has written two books, including Everything Trump Touches Dies.
During the video Wilson refers, at one point, to his “misspent youth.” He may be thinking about the time he created the ad that defeated Max Cleland—a war hero paralyzed by his wounds—by implying that Cleland supported Al-Qaida.
Will Saletan has been writing on public affairs since 1996. He has also written two books. Sometimes he’s right, and sometimes he’s not. In 2003 he wrote a book arguing that conservatives had won the public debate about abortion rights. Well, if they had won it in 2003, they have lost it now; look at the headlines out of Missouri today. In 2023, he wrote The Corruption of Lindsey Graham: A case study in the rise of authoritarianism.
Facing MAGA 