With clear eyes, hard facts, critical thinking, new political strategy, empathy, and a soupçon of Schadenfreude
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.
In the Washington Post today, Catherine Rampell writes,
More than anything else, President Donald Trump loves winning. Yet he has already positioned America to lose the 21st century, in three simple steps:
Tom Nichols, It Was an Ambush: Friday marked one of the grimmest days in the history of American diplomacy.
Jonathan Chait, The Real Reason Trump Berated Zelensky: He simply likes Vladimir Putin better.
Rashomon is a Japanese story where everyone gives conflicting accounts of the same event, and all of them, maybe, are inaccurate. I get much the same feeling here. The sources cited here include lots of observations from intelligent, well-informed people—much more well informed, and closer to the center of power, than I am—and yet … the account ts and explanations are markedly inconsistent in important ways. Plus they seem glaringly incomplete.
One explanation for what happened is that Trump and Vance set up Zelenskyy.
One explanation is that Vance—a declared supporter of Christianist autocracy and an even bigger Putin ass kisser than Trump—sabotaged the signing of a framework deal with Ukraine.
One explanation is that Putin told his boy Trump to back out of the deal that was about to be signed, and that Trump had no choice but to do his master’s bidding.
But I was particularly struck by the point made by one of the talking heads in the Washington Week video, who reported that in a pre-meeting Trump lashed out at Rubio, Waltz, and his other minions for not making a deal that would give Trump an even bigger share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth. That suggests that what happened was Trump just playing his familiar bullying -bluster-and-bullshit game to sweeten a deal.
In any event, I don’t think all those talking heads and pontificating pundits are wrapping their heads around the larger context.
Every indication is that Putin doesn’t want to do a cease fire deal, and that he, particularly, does not want to share Ukraine’s carcass with Donald John Trump.
And, meanwhile, there are the Europeans. Trump thinks he can intimidate them by blowing hot and cold. Will he abide by Article 5? Won’t he abide by Article 5? Will he go to war if Putin attacks Estonia? What about Sweden? If Putin attacks France, how much money will Trump demand in exchange for coming to its aid?
Vance and Musk explicitly say the United States should withdraw from NATO. Trump keeps making that threat. The Europeans, along with Ukraine, are going to have to go it alone, as best they can, because they have no other choice.
I don’t mean any other reasonable choice. I don’t mean any other choice that they might live with.
I mean literally no other choice at all than to kiss the United States goodbye and go it alone.
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Putin Wins the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office Spectacle: Vice President Vance starts a public fight that only helps Russia’s dictator
Last week, at the United Nations, the United States sided with North Korea and Belurus, refusing to support a European resolution condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine. Then, on Friday, there was the debacle in the Oval Office. Taken together, these developments have led many to conclude that the United States has switched sides in the Cold War.
Writing about yesterday’s TV spectacle in the Oval Office, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board does not focus on whether or not the US has actually switched sides. Rather, true to its lodestar value—namely, the election of Republicans to office, where they can pursue a business-friendly agenda of low taxes and minimal regulation—the Board has some pointed words about the political peril ahead. The Board writes,
“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office,” Mr. Trump wrote on social media on Friday afternoon after the exchange, while booting the Ukrainian president from the White House. “He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” The two didn’t sign a planned agreement on minerals that would have at least given Ukraine some hope of future U.S. support.
The meeting between Messrs. Trump and Zelensky started out smoothly enough. “It’s a big commitment from the United States, and we appreciate working with you very much, and we will continue to do that,” Mr. Trump said of the mineral deal. Mr. Zelensky showed photos of Ukrainians mistreated as prisoners of war. “That’s tough stuff,” Mr. Trump said.
But then the meeting, in front of the world, descended into recriminations. The nose dive began with an odd interjection from Vice President JD Vance, who appeared to be defending Mr. Trump’s diplomacy, which Mr. Zelensky hadn’t challenged. Mr. Zelensky rehearsed the many peace agreements Mr. Putin has shredded and essentially asked Mr. Vance what would be different this time.
Mr. Vance unloaded on Mr. Zelensky—that he was “disrespectful,” low on manpower, and gives visitors to Ukraine a “propaganda” tour. President Trump appeared piqued by Mr. Zelensky’s suggestion that the outcome in Ukraine would matter to the U.S. “Your country is in big trouble. You’re not winning,” Mr. Trump said at one point.
Why did the Vice President try to provoke a public fight? Mr. Vance has been taking to his X.com account in what appears to be an effort to soften up the political ground for a Ukraine surrender, most recently writing off Mr. Putin’s brutal invasion as a mere ethnic rivalry. Mr. Vance dressed down Mr. Zelensky as if he were a child late for dinner. He claimed the Ukrainian hadn’t been grateful enough for U.S. aid, though he has thanked America countless times for its support. This was not the behavior of a wannabe statesman.
Mr. Zelensky would have been wiser to defuse the tension by thanking the U.S. again, and deferring to Mr. Trump. There’s little benefit in trying to correct the historical record in front of Mr. Trump when you’re also seeking his help.
But as with the war, Mr. Zelensky didn’t start this Oval Office exchange. Was he supposed to tolerate an extended public denigration of the Ukrainian people, who have been fighting a war for survival for three years?
It is bewildering to see Mr. Trump’s allies defending this debacle as some show of American strength. The U.S. interest in Ukraine is shutting down Mr. Putin’s imperial project of reassembling a lost Soviet empire without U.S. soldiers ever having to fire a shot. That core interest hasn’t changed, but berating Ukraine in front of the entire world will make it harder to achieve.
Turning Ukraine over to Mr. Putin would be catastrophic for that country and Europe, but it would be a political calamity for Mr. Trump too. The U.S. President can’t simply walk away from that conflict, much as he would like to. Ukraine has enough weapons support to last until sometime this summer. But as the war stands, Mr. Putin sees little reason to make any concessions as his forces gain ground inch by bloody inch in Ukraine’s east.
Friday’s spectacle won’t make him any more willing to stop his onslaught as he sees the U.S. President and his eager deputy unload on Ukraine’s leader. Some Trumpologists have been suggesting Mr. Trump will put pressure on Mr. Putin in due time. But so far Mr. Putin hasn’t made a single concession on territory, or on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future after a peace deal is signed.
President Trump no doubt resents having to deal with a war he thinks he might have prevented had he won in 2020. But Presidents have to deal with the world they inherit. Peace in Ukraine is salvageable, but he and Mr. Zelensky will have to work together on an agreement that Ukrainians can live with.
Mr. Trump does not want to be the President who abandoned Ukraine to Vladimir Putin with all the bloodshed and damage to U.S. interests that would result. Mr. Vance won’t like to run for President in such a world either.
Cass R. Sunstein, This Theory Is Behind Trump’s Power Grab
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.
Folks, grab a six pack and pop a big old bowl of popcorn.
The Guardian writes,
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.
David Leonhardt, In an Age of Right-Wing Populism, Why Are Denmark’s Liberals Winning?
Mr. Leonhardt is a senior columnist for the New York Times, and the author of Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream.
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 livestock and passed a law that requires 15 percent of farmland to become natural habitat. On reproductive rights, Denmark last year expanded access to abortion through 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.”
Jeff Shesol (N.Y. Times), John Roberts Has One Chance to Get This Right
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.
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.
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.
Facing MAGA 