Sporto

Jon Chait has one of his occasional off-topic columns, in this case an examination of how to reform college athletics.  As someone marginally involved in high school athletics (few of my wrestlers go on to college), it's an interesting dilemma that extends beyond just college athletes or even just football and men's basketball. 

One trend we are seeing is specialization - in effect professionalization - at younger and younger ages.  Little kids are becoming "soccer players" or "hockey players" or "lacrosse players" at very young ages.  They then overtrain in those sports, which leads to burn out and injuries.  There is an interesting theory about overtraining in girl's soccer and ACL injuries.  Or the effects of concussions in various sports. 

Because so many kids see sports as a way to leverage their admission into a college (or a "better" college), sports is stripped more and more of its educational value.  The original model for school sports was the old English Boarding School model - one that our school attempts to preserve.  The idea was that competing on a team, even a Fourths team, would build physical strength but also teamwork and character lessons around winning and losing.  As Wellington said, "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." 

Sports, in this view, are part of the moral and ethical education of the child, as well as the physical education of the child.  What we have today is an increasing push of the professionalization of sports onto younger and younger kids.  It's toxic.  It teaches the wrong things.  Most countries place sports outside of schools.  There are clubs that develop athletes.  That, I'm sure, creates its own set of problems.

Those problems, however, would not be the problems of how we educate our children. 

The Surrender

Jon Chait notes that Republicans and "conservatives" have now mostly capitulated to Trumpism.  This should not be a surprise to anyone who has looked - unblinking - at the Republican Party, especially since 1994 and the rise of the Gingrich Right.  Conservatism has returned to what Lionel Trilling called it "irritable mental gestures."  It is not "conservative" in any meaningful way.  It is reactionary, but above all tribal, insular and resistant to evidence and logic.

I'm not sure Trump can be the reckoning that it deserves.  The US needs a Republican Party that isn't...well, what today's Republican Party is. 

No New Ideas

The Republican Party is pretty much out of ideas.

Given control of all branches of the government, they could have initiated some truly bold policies.  Except, they have no bold policies.

Instead, we got a massive tax cut bill, the promise of ANOTHER massive tax cut bill, plus more military spending.  It's Reagan all over again, and SURPRISE!  Massive deficits.

Now they are rolling out their dumbassed solution to the problem they created: a balanced budget amendment.  As the article immediately makes clear, there is zero chance of a balanced budget amendment passing.  Zero.  Nor is Trump going to get his line item veto (also unconstitutional).  These were ideas trotted out in the '90s after Republicans first abandoned their traditions of fiscal conservatism.  Faced with the collapse of supply side theory in the face of...math...they came up with the gimmick of an amendment that would force massive spending cuts to further immiserate the poor.

The pattern is crystal clear: Massive tax cuts; massive deficits; hand wringing over how this possibly could have happened (hint: math); proposal to destroy the social safety net even more.

What I can't decide is which is more important to the GOP: giving rich people MORE money or giving poor people LESS money.

UPDATE: Jon Chait explores the rank hypocrisy of conservative "intellectuals."

The Brennan Report

Charlie Pierce (eventually) points to the Brennan Center Report that suggests Democrats will need an 11 point wave to recapture even the barest majority in the House, because of gerrymandering. I confess, I have only read summaries of the Brennan Report, but it strikes me as a group with a very particular ax to grind.  They have been fighting against gerrymandering for a while now and want to make sure that the Supreme Court takes the Wisconsin case seriously.  I guess.

If you believe that Democrats need an 11 point lead, and you look at the generic ballot that suggests merely a 6 point wave, then you might decide that now would be a good time to freak out.  Democrats winning at least one of the houses of Congress is an imperative for the health of American democracy in the Age of Trumpistan. 

Some problems.

First, the Brennan report uses historical modeling to come up with the 11 point margin.  OK, that's fine, I guess.  But it doesn't tell us THAT much about 2018.

Second, gerrymandering isn't universal.  California doesn't gerrymander, and I can see Democrats winning 7-10 seats in that state alone.  Pennsylvania has a new map that could allow for another 4-5 seats being picked up. 

Third, this feels like a corrective election, almost a realignment.  Trump's polls remain "sticky" with approval ratings around 40.  The problem is that his support has collapsed in those suburban swing districts that will likely decide the 2018 election.  Without even trying, Democrats should benefit from this election being about Trump.  A lot of Republicans who coasted to victories in the Age of Obama will now be voted out, because people actually seem to like divided government.

Fourth, polls this far out are kind of useless, and tend to underreport building waves.  Much more important are special elections.  In those elections, Democrats are seeing about a 13 point swing in their favor.  Those results matter, even if they wind up being Democratic losses.

No, nothing is set in stone.  I can see a case for fighting complacency, and the Brennan Report could be an effort to ward off the idea that a simple wave will solve our problems without working for it.  I can also see a case where Democratic fatalism and pessimism creates a crisis where one does not exist yet.

Yes, Please And Thank You

Want to do something "easy" and meaningful on gun safety?  Make those who peddle guns liable for the damage they do.

Worked for cigarettes.  It can work with guns.

A Whipped Dog

Josh Marshall notes that Trump's obsequiousness towards Russia has not been reciprocated.  Russia has not taken Trump's "reset" with Russia as an opportunity to engage in something like detente.  Instead, they have continued provocative behavior.  The nerve agent attack in Britain is just one example.

Today in class, we re-read George Kennan's Long Telegraph.  I was struck by how this paragraph from 70 years ago was still relevant:

Soviet power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventurist. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns.

Our duty, and I use that word consciously, is to stop Putin by showing that we will stop Putin.  

It's fine to arrest the assholes from Cambridge Analytica.  But until we hit Putin where it hurts, this is all just show.

Storm Warning

I think Jon Chait is right.  Stormy Daniels won't take down Trump; she will take down Michael Cohen.  And if Cohen flips on Trump?  That would be the bigliest.

Male Fragility

This is a fascinating examination of the role that male fragility has in creating the modern gun culture.  Basically, as the idea of the male "breadwinner" dies away, especially among working class men, men have to redefine what it means to "be a man."  Meanwhile, they are simultaneously dealing with their declining fortunes and status.  Women might be earning more than them.  They are no longer the patriarch of their community.

They channel this sense of cultural decline - which is really just their own personal status being eclipsed by others - into a need to "protect" themselves and their communities. This was a deliberate strategy of the NRA to sell more guns.

Think about the role that fear played in Trump's campaign.  The hordes of Mexican rapists and MS13 and "urban people" coming to take away what's yours.  American carnage.  The blasted lives in urban hellholes.

What do you think Make America Great Again actually means?

Trump's entire persona is tha angry backlash against declining white male privilege.  The Access Hollywood tape didn't sink him, because there were millions of Americans who wanted to go back to the idea that a little grab-ass was just clean fun and not sexual assault.  There are a group of men who want to go back to when they felt like women were theirs, prosperity was theirs, power was theirs.

The NRA feeds on this sense of declining white power, but as the piece notes, in places like Detroit, black men can often feel that sense of helplessness that prompts one to carry a gun.  Of course, black men are most often the victims of the fear that leads to an over-armed citizenry.  Marry the racial fears that whites have of black men with an abundance of weaponry, and you have the formula that leads policemen to shoot first and ask questions later.

When I was down in Georgia, I looked through the magazine rack in the local CVS.  There were TWO "Prepper" magazines, devoted to those who want to create a rural fortress against the collapse of civilization.  Two!  I feel reasonably certain our local magazine rack has no issues of "Prepper" lit, but given how relatively conservative our corner of the state is, I can't be sure.

This sense of siege has economic undertones, as White Working Class men are seeing their economic status decline relative to Hipster Men and College Educated Women and Those People.  (Although Those People continue to be poorer than the WWC.) It also has flavors of racism and sexism.

And it has a body count.  At Parkland, Austin, Las Vegas, Orlando...It's not women who are shooting up schools or concerts.  It's not women who are mailing bombs to people.

There is something terribly wrong with men - young and old - in America today.  Fear has replaced optimism, and fear is a terribly emotion to base your decision making on.

This extraordinary student movement against gun violence has its roots, at least in part, in the Millenial generations acceptance of things like non-binary gender and racial diversity.  But that doesn't mean that Nikolas Cruz or Mark Anthony Condit aren't affected by this new form of toxic masculinity.

The idea that I need a gun to protect my family is a perversion of so many different tenets of a functioning society that I scarcely know how to respond.

Where Is Your God Now?

Reading this expose on a different town that has suffered through gun violence gives an interesting perspective on what the author calls "Gun Fatalism."  Basically, the residents of this small Kentucky town don't believe that gun control measures would prevent school shootings.  There's that familiar sense of learned helplessness that permeates the gun control debate, but there is something else there that I find is pervasive among rural conservatives.

It's God.

The basic idea is that bad things happen because you turn from God and good things can only happen with God's grace.  Obviously the first part is a meaningless tautology.  If something bad happens, you can just throw up your arms and blame the lack of Jesus in the world.  It's not an explanation for what happened, it's a decision not to look for an explanation that might discomfit you.

The second part creates the idea that "nothing can be done."  Because God isn't there to prevent the insane and the evil from shooting up schools...well, what can you do about it?  Malcolm X made a similar point about the role of Christianity in creating passivity in African American populations.  The idea that heaven is your true reward means that you continue to abandon your responsibility to try and improve things on earth.  You give up your agency to God and allow the world to unfurl in all its chaotic and violent tumult. 

It strikes me that this isn't really what Jesus was talking about and may have contributed to the decision of Roman authorities to execute him.  This isn't about the Gospel, it's about a mindset that destroys human agency on the altar of "God's Will."  This is about the difference between the spiritual truths in the Bible and the narrow authoritarian mindset that focuses more on Leviticus than the Beatitudes.

Do Republicans Like Democracy?

I think that's a fair question.  Republicans in Wisconsin don't want to hold special elections.  In Pennsylvania, they want to impeach judges whose decision will cost them seats.  In Illinois, the nominated a Nazi.  And then there is the fondness for Russia and Putin that extends beyond Trump to people like Dana Rohrbacher. 

I wonder what will happen as more and more Republicans who DO care about democracy look at the crazy people who are traveling in the same wagon as they are.

Bone Chilling

I really want you to read Jon Chait's summation of the reporting on the John Bolton hire.  Go past the fear that Bolton has justifiably instilled in the foreign policy community (on both sides of the aisle).  Go into Trump's relationship with HR McMaster.  McMaster was one of the few appointments that Trump made that impressed me.  It came, you might recall, after the Michael Flynn fiasco, when Trump probably had to listen to some grown ups who advocated a sterling military figure with a top-notch intellect.

McMaster was almost immediately a square peg in the White House's assortment of holes.  He was organized, thoughtful, disciplined and a realist.  He spoke in paragraphs rather than sound bites.  He expected the president* to take both their jobs seriously.  Trump responded to the "boring" national security briefings by avoiding McMaster the way my students avoid me when they have to make up a test.

Perhaps the scariest nugget is that the only thing that prevented Trump from making this move earlier was his disdain for Bolton's moustache.

Let's let that sink in for a moment.  John Bolton is an unapologetic war-monger.  He refuses to admit mistakes, like the Iraq debacle.  He bullies subordinates.  Even Republicans hate and fear him.

But Trump just didn't like the moustache.

Bolton represents the series of decisions that manifests a frightening turn in the Trump Adminstration.  To this point, Trump has largely been shackled by his own incompetence and the "moderating" influence - however weak - of figures like Cohn, McMaster, Tillerson and even Kelly.  Three of those four are gone and the fourth won't last to Memorial Day.  Instead, as the Mueller probe gets closer to Trump Tower, as the weather gets Stormy, as the poll numbers sink, as the special elections go against the GOP, Trump will do what Trump does best: distract and change the subject.

What could change the subject more than a war?  All Bolton would have to do is point to George W. Bush's declining approval ratings from December 2001 to March 2003.  Once we invaded Iraq, Bush got a "war bounce."  However, Trump is very unlikely to get a "war bounce" because most people really, truly hate and fear him.  There is no 9/11 to galvanize national opinion. The bloody lessons of Iraq are still very near to memory.  Leading a divided nation into war is a truly bad idea, and we are nothing if not divided.

At the moment, the best hope for America would be for Congress to repeal the AUMF.  I bet we could get it rescinded in the Senate pretty easily.  Paul and McCain would probably vote to repeal.  The House, as always, is trickier.  Congress has ceded so much of its war powers to the Presidency, that it will be hard to claw them back.  They have to try.

Because the Republicans in the White House just gave the keys to the drones and the tanks and the aircraft carriers and the lives of thousands of soldiers to John Fucking Bolton, and the only person left to restrain him is a Marine nicknamed "Mad Dog."

We haven't reached the bottom yet, folks.  That's maybe the scariest thing of all.

George Will Is Right About Something?

California will be an important part of turning the House Blue.

Race And Wealth

There is a large and comprehensive study out of the intergenerational social mobility along racial and ethnic lines.  Interestingly, it finds that if you control for variables, the income and wealth gap between black women and white women is very small.  The income and wealth gap between black men and white men is huge, and what is more, being wealthy to start out doesn't help.  Usually, the best way to be wealthy is to be born into wealth, yet for black men, that isn't a guarantee.

First, as is noted in the article, this should put the "nail in the coffin" of the odious racism of The Bell Curve.  If blacks were simply inferior to whites, then we would see the same gap that we see between black men and white men between black women and white women.  A few African American activists and scholars have decried this as pathologizing the black male or mythologizing the black female. 

I think that's wrong.  This isn't drawing any conclusions, it's simply measuring what exists.  What this study does is measure the effects of racism on black men.  While black women are incarcerated at higher rates than white women, both numbers are relatively low.  While incarceration alone can't explain the difference in black men and white men, we can look at the high rates of incarceration of black men as a proxy for how white society looks at black men as threatening.  That feeling of threat pervades the black male's world. 

If racism is more than simply bigotry, if it is in fact a power system, then racism towards black men is being measured in this study, not explained.

In Other News

The wave of bombings in Austin, Texas remains a "mystery."  Of course, the targets of the first bombings were all African American.  Odds are that it's some white supremacist group in Texas who wants to kill black people and Austin hippies.

But let's make sure we don't let any Syrian children into the country, because terrorism.

Wither Now

I've always made it a premise of this blog that I would write every day if I was able.  Yesterday, the weather was lovely, there was a large dead tree to fell, quiet time...and the idea of sitting down and commenting on the current state of our politics...again...was just too much.

When you have the widespread assumption that Trump and his legal team are laying the groundwork to fire Mueller, and then you have the GOP quibbling over how or whether to protect Mueller's independence, it's difficult to have much faith in our two party system.  Parties should be, well, partisan.  That conflict is essential to how our governmental system functions.  But Trump is so far outside the normsand practices of our previous chief executives, that something has to be done.  The pants wetting fear that most GOP members of Congress feel over Trump voters, especially the Deplorables, effectively immobilizes the legislative branch.

If Trump does fire Mueller, here is the link to the nearest protest.  I'm not usually one for political street theater, but this is serious.

Cambridge Analytica

Amazing expose of the guy who helped data mine for the group that gave us fake news.

Red Versus Blue

Here is an interesting take on the rural-urban divide which is probably the single biggest cultural division in the US right now.  Sean Illing, the interviewer, can barely contain his anger and disgust with rural, social conservatives.  That's an interesting stance, and I think it's a reaction against all these Cleetus Safaris, where the Times sends someone out to East Bumphuck to interview Trump voters to see that they are still Trump voters.

Rural America is substantially different than the rest of the country.  The nature of our Congressional and statehouse districts means that the country will always be over-represented in government.  This helps give American politics an unusually conservative cast. 

The broader question is why have rural communities been left behind.  The issue is that small towns have a nice hermetically sealed culture.  It's unchanging.  That's precisely the appeal.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is changing at a very rapid pace.  Drive an hour into the cities or even the suburbs and you find out that most people don't care if their kid's teacher is gay, or that their neighbor is from Senegal.  They love that there is a new Burmese restaurant in town, because they've never had Burmese food.  They are cord-cutting their way off regular TV.  They are participating in new ways of employment. 

So, change and diversity is a vital part of urban America, and rural America hates it. 

The reality is that rural America is dealing now with issues like unemployment and the opiod crisis. The modern plague of cities that country folk thought where limited to cities have found their way to small towns.  These plagues, it turns out, were not caused by city values or the fact that black and brown people are morally inferior.  The plagues travel together.  You don't have a job?  Get high.  Get high? You don't get a job. 

Ultimately, we do need to realize that we have an economic system that is incredibly beneficial to a tiny group of people.  Benefits a bare majority of the rest and significantly disadvantages a sizable portion of people.  That anger is then misplaced into racial bigotry, homophobia and xenophobia.  Yet, it's precisely the insular, anti-Enlightenment mindset of these rural villages that makes them poor places to do business.  And so Red America falls farther behind and gets more and more resentful.  Meanwhile, the politicians who animate their racism continue to pursue policies that benefit the 1%.

I'm not sure what breaks the cycle, beyond the actuarial table.

Here We Go

Trump's typically dickish move to fire Andrew McCabe two days before his pension kicked in could simply be Trump and the people around him being their usual asshole selves.  This is a crew who fire people on Twitter.  It can't be said enough, these are the worst people.

What's worrisome is that we are seeing the groundwork being laid for the firing of Bob Mueller.  Trump's attorney is floating it.  The bullshit release of that House majority report on the 2016 election and the firing of McCabe and the calls from people like Chuck Grassley to investigate the FBI are designed to cast doubts on the FBI, US intelligence services and thus the Mueller investigation.

Meanwhile, the Russians are actively launching small scale chemical weapons attacks on one of our allies, while we do almost nothing.

When Nixon fired Archibald Cox, he faced a Democratic congress and a Republican party that wasn't going to put party over country.  That is not the case with Mueller. 

These are deeply perilous times for our democracy. Hopefully, Trump's firing of some people will sate his need to be cruel for a little while longer and shield Mueller for a few months.  We need to get to November.  Fast.

Be Very Afraid

The past fifteen months has seen a near collapse in the credibility and professionalism of the executive branch.  Sean Spicer made way for Sarah Sanders.  Steve Bannon made way for the Mooch!  The Secretary of State was fired on Twitter.  The Trump family is enriching itself from federal coffers and foreign emoluments.  The Secretary of HHS has to step down because of scandal, and he wasn't the only one.

The thing is: This might be the high point of Trump's efficiency and effectiveness.

The decision to fire Tillerson and now HR McMaster bodes poorly for the future.  Tillerson was an abyssmal Secretary of State, but apparently he was seeing his department gutted by a sort of McCarthyite purge (not sure how this is legal) led by outsiders.  Now, with Tillerson and McMaster gone, those "outsiders" are going to be the insiders.

The Post article suggests that the following Cabinet level officers could be fired: David Shulkin (VA), Ben Carson (HUD), Scott Pruit (EPA) and Ryan Zinke (Interior).  At some point John Kelly will leave or be fired.

First of all, many of these people should be fired. In fact, they never should have been hired in the first place.  Few of them have the necessary experience or temperment to run a federal agency.  I'm not going to weep for the defenestration of Betsy DeVos, should it happen.

The problem is that Trump is not going to then turn around and hire better people.  In fact, by all accounts, he's going to tap John Bolton to replace McMaster.  That's....disastrous.  Bolton suggests that Trump is willing to go to war sooner rather than later, casus belli be damned.  I'm trying to come up with a worse scenario than leading a badly divided country into a war with Iran.  All I came come up with is leading a badly divided country into a war with Russia or China.  Kelly could be replaced with Newt Gingrich, a man whose own personal odiousness and partisan vindictiveness was either the cause or the portent of our poisoned politics in the 21st century. 

In short, Trump is surrounding himself with the commentariat of Fox News.  I'm waiting for Trump to cast aside Mike Pence in 2020 and name Sean Hannity his running mate.  I'm waiting for Jeannine Pirro to be nominated to the Supreme Court. 

Trump has always been the racist uncle who no one wants to sit next to at Thanksgiving or open his conspiratorial emails.  He's always been the Fox News president.  Now, he's making it official.  Back when he was surprisingly capturing the nomination, David Frum said that Republicans realized that they had thought that Fox News worked for them, only to find out that they worked for Fox News.

Trump will make this a reality.  Given the lack of spine in the GOP caucus, he will be permitted to.  The Ghost of Roger Ailes will rule this country.

Thanks a lot, Republicans.

Modern Conservatism

David Roberts writes a nice summary of what modern "conservatism" is as regards the NYTimes Op-Ed page.

It is worth repeated that Cleek's Law is over a decade old and still applies: Republicans believe the opposite of what Democrats believe, updated every fifteen minutes. 

It's not an ideology.  It's a mood. 

It's resentment.

Everything And Nothing

What appears to be a Democratic pick-up in PA-18 is both meaningless and an earthquake.  It's meaningless, because the district isn't going to be around much longer.  It's being redistricted away.

But as a demonstration of Republican weakness, it's very significant.  The district has a heavy Republican lean, but Connor Lamb was a very adept candidate.  He was also a candidate who didn't benefit much from external spending.  Saccone required massive outside spending.  Interestingly, it was Republicans who tried to "nationalize" the race by bringing up immigration and Nancy Pelosi.  It didn't work. 

Democrats will have a roster of interesting candidates, and the Republicans will not be able to flood every district with money, the way they did the past few weeks in Pennsylvania.  Democrats are able to mobilize anti-Trump sentiment without ever having to mention Trump. 

The odds of Democrats not flipping the House seem vanishingly small at this point.

Buh Bye

Tillerson gets fired.  I suppose Pompeo might be a bit more of a Russia Hawk, which we need right now.  But honestly, who knows?  Right now, we need a Secretary of State who will actually try to staff and run State in a way that makes us safer.

Pompeo will be replaced by a torture abetter at CIA, so that ain't great.  As Tillerson was arguably the worst SecState in living memory, I suppose we could do no worse.

Hopefully, Tillerson has an angry memoir out soon.

It's Called The Heartland, Because The Brain's Not There

WaPo has a profile of the town in Indiana that became a microcosm of the deportation state under Trump.  It was the story of a sympathetic, hard working immigrant who owned a popular restaurant and was deported.  And now, in a variation of the Cleetus Safaris that the Times and Post and other premier news outlets run, they have gone back to see whether the deportation of Roberto Beristain has left a mark.

Some are sad, but sad in a way that makes for even sadder reading:

“I didn’t even see Roberto as Mexican,” said Angela Banfi, a friend and waitress at the restaurant. “He was not one of those Mexicans. He was like a white boy to me.”

I mean, thanks, Angela, for helping rip the mask off what all this is about.  Thanks, for not talking about law and order or economic anxiety.  Oh, and by the way Angela Banfi, I assume you're not one of those Greeks.  You are like a regular white person to me, too.

Thank God, Obama's election ended racism in this country.

Modern Conservatism

Here it is.

You're Recent PVI Update

So, let's say that we see a 12 point Blue Wave.  Which districts are at risk (+12 to +8 GOP districts)?  Which are Lean Democrats (+7 to +3 GOP districts)?  Which are Solid Democrats (+2 GOP to Dem districts)?

At Risk to Dems
AK - at large
AZ 6
CA 1
CA 4
CA 8
CA 22
CA 42
CA 50
FL 3
FL 8
FL 12
GA 1
GA 6
GA 7
GA 12
IL 16
IN 2
IN 5
KY 6
MI 1
MI 2
MI 4
MN 6
MO 2
NJ 4
NY 27
NC 3
NC 5
NC 6
NC 7
NC 8
NC 9
NC 10
OH 2
OH 5
OH 7
OH 16
OR 2
PA 10
PA 16
SC 5
SC 7
TX 2
TX 6
TX 10
TX 17
TX 21
TX 22
TX 24
TX 25
TX 31
VA 1
WA 5
WI 6
WI 7

55 seats total. 

Lean Dem Chance
ARK 2
CA 45
CA 48
CO 3
FL 6
FL 15
FL 16
FL 18
FL 25
IL 12
IL 13
IL 14
KS 3
MI 3
MI 6
MI 7
MI 8
MI 11
NE 2
NV 2
NJ 7
NJ 11
NM 2
NY 1
NY 2
NY 11
NY 21
NY 22
NY 23
NC 2
NC 13
OH 1
OH 10
OH 12
OH 14
OH 15
PA 17
TX 7
TX 32
VA 2
VA 5
VA 7
WA 3
WI 1
WI 8

45 seats total

Solid Dem Chance
AZ 2
CA 10
CA 21
CA 25
CA 39
CA 49
CO 6
FL 26
FL 27
IL 6
IA 1
IA 3
ME 2
MN 2
MN 3
NJ 2
NJ 3
NY 19
NY 24
PA 1
PA 5
PA 6
PA 7
TX 23
VA 10
WA 8

26 seats total.

Let's say that the Democrats pick up 23 of the 26 "Solid Dem Chance" and then 22 of the 45 "Lean Dem Chance" and then 15 of the "At Risk."  That gives them a pickup of 60 seats.

They need 24 seats to take the House.

There are some caveats.  We don't even know what the Pennsylvania map will look like come November.  Democrats can always blow winnable races by running weak candidates.  It's a long way to November.

However, the battleground needs to be prepared. Right now, the battleground should be California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  Texas...maybe. 

I'll Endorse This

Not usually a fan of Salon, but this take on the main problems on college campuses today is spot on.

When I think of the very legitimate problem of soaring college costs, I worry that we aren't even asking the right questions.  First, I don't think "free four year college tuition" is a good idea.  18-22 year olds loosed upon the quad without any sense of needing to justify their time in college?  I think we would be looking at a free rider problem of magnificent proportions.  Even tying free tuition to grades would simply create a perverse incentive to cheat and grade grub and pressure professors to inflate grades.  And it wouldn't just come from the students, the institution wouldn't want to lose too many of those tuition checks by being overly rigorous.

Some of this simply winds up merging with my worries about the changing nature of work and compensation.  Trust me, when I say it's not the adjuncts that are causing this upwards spiral in costs, but if we had more public goods - universal health and day care, for instance - then perhaps we could ease some upwards trajectory on labor costs.  The real issue on colleges seems to be the increasing "service" that are secondary to actual classroom experiences.  Some of these are quite valuable. Some are not. 

The broader question of a liberal arts education is, I suppose, up for debate.  But it seems as if there are three purposes for college.  First, it is to educate and enlighten the mind.  Second, it is to create networks and shared experiences with like peers.  Third, it provides a form of professional accreditation. 

The first is ultimately more dependent on the student than the institution.  Abraham Lincoln taught himself Euclid by candlelight.  You can educate and broaden your mind wherever you are, college just makes it easier.

The second is underrated, I think.  Most people learn from their peers.  You pick up as much from the informal debate in the dorms or from the behavior of your friends than you do in "Introduction of Philosophy."  The primary benefit of going to Harvard is that you are surrounded by people who could get into Harvard. Those peers become a network for you for the rest of your life.

The third really depends on why you are there and what you study.  The increased specialization of learning has penetrated into my school, and I can't say I like it. I'd prefer the enlightenment model of expanding a young person's ability to think and the scope of what they understand.  The truth, however, is that they simply want the MBA or the MD so that they can get about the job of making money.  One of our most popular electives is Economics - a course that wasn't even offered when I was in high school. Nothing wrong with offering Economics, at all, but the motivations of the students are pretty transparent.  They are not interested in grappling with Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes or Friedrich von Hayek.  They want to bank some coin.

As we grapple with how to arrest the spiraling costs of college, we almost have to start by trying to define for ourselves what college is really for.

Oh, Crap...

As the Trumpageddon unfolds, more and more of the so-called adults in the room will either leave of be defenestrated.  Vanity Fair predicts some of the next steps: he will get rid of John Kelly and HR McMaster.  I would guess that Rex Tillerson won't be long for his job either.  Without Kelly or McMaster to shield him, how much longer to Mattis stay at Defense?

Even more terrifying is the roster of replacements.  McMaster could be replaced by bloodthirsty ghoul John Bolton.  Plutocrat and supply side fundamentalist Larry Kudlow looks to already be in line for Gary Cohn's job.  The next Chief of Staff?  Corey Lewandowski or Newt Gingrich?  Devin Nunes?  Who the hell know?

The recent chaos surrounding Trump's impetuous spasm of words on North Korea  and steel tariffs is a good example of where we are headed.  Since Trump neither knows nor cares to learn about policy or the world at large, we can be assured that he will continue to thrash about creating chaos in this country and the world at large.  This is who he is.

Subtract even the modest restraints on him, and the chaos and dysfunction will "go to eleven."

But the GOP got tax cuts for the rich and Neil Gorsuch from it, so who cares that Putin just got the best return on investment in the history of international competition.

Luckovich

This literally cannot be improved upon:

Scandal Scorecard

Trying to keep up with every single Trump scandal is exhausting.  There were multiple scandals under Nixon and Reagan - garden level corruption all the way to Watergate and Iran Contra - but there has never been an administration so steeped in wrong doing.

And, please, unlike Solyandra, Benghazi and Fast and Furious, these are REAL scandals, not partisan confections.

David Leonhardt has kept his naughty list.  Here's a partial rundown, and frankly it hasn't kept pace with the times:

- Trump is funneling government money to his private properties.
- Trump is using his private properties to allow others, including foreign powers, to curry influence with him.
- The following Cabinet officials are either under investigation for abusing public funds or have already resigned: Tom Price HHS, Ryan Zinke Interior, David Shulkin Veteran's Affairs, Steve Mnuchin Treasury, Scott Pruitt EPA.
- The following Cabinet and White House officials are under investigation for violating federal ethics laws: Kellyanne Conway, Ben Carson HUD, Brenda Fitzgerald CDC, KT McFarland NSC.
- The following are being investigated for conspiring with Russia in the lead-up to the 2016 election: Michael Flynn (guilty plea), Paul Manafort, Rick Gates (guilty plea), George Papadopoulos (guilty plea), Carter Page.

Things Leonhardt has omitted:
- Jared Kushner's financial ties to various countries - the UAE, Russia and Saudi Arabia - have led to the revocation of his security clearance.  There are credible allegations of influence peddling and policy outcomes linked to loans.
- Erik Prince (Betsy DeVos' brother) had a meeting in the Seychelles with Putin's buddies to set up backchannel communications.  George Nader, a participant in those meetings, has flipped to Mueller.
- Possible campaign finance violations in the payouts to Stormy Daniels.  Not to mention the payouts to Stormy Daniels.
- The Rob Porter scandal, whereby a serial domestic abuser was given White House security clearance.
- Trump's transparent effort to obstruct investigations into his affairs by firing James Comey.
- Trump's comments after the Charlottesville violence.
- Carl Icahn appears to have used White House connections to engage in insider trading.
- The almost inevitable and sadly comic cavalcade of lies that erupts from every White House press briefing.

This list - which itself is probably incomplete - does not even begin to touch the dysfunction and poor policy of the Trump White House.  It doesn't touch on the failure to repeal Obamacare, the deficit busting tax cut, the giveaways to banks, Wall Street and big business (especially polluters).  It doesn't touch on the various Twitter feuds and the inconsistent messaging that has led to the DACA travesty or the tariff maelstrom or the indecision on gun policy.

Still, the economy added 313,000 jobs this month.  Wages are stalled however, which doesn't really make sense.  With unemployment near record lows, most Presidents would see sky-high approval ratings. Rasmussen - a noticeably GOP leaning outfit - has Trump at -10 approval. Reuters pegs it at -14, same with Monmouth.  IBD/TIPP has it at a whopping -21.

There are a lot of pessimistic voices about how America is now a land of Trump loving yahoos.  The reality is that Trump won a narrow Electoral College victory over an unpopular insider by drawing an inside straight.  His support since then has collapsed in certain key demographics.

As the indictments and resignations pile up, all except his Fox News chugging base will have to reckon with a man who has already made the Grant and Harding administrations look like paragons of virtue in comparison.

What The...

This is extraordinarily good news.  I'm trying to figure out why North Korea would come to the table, and all I can come up with is that they must be headed for a colossal crop failure and President Xi is now in a position where he can exert a little more pressure on Pyongyang to stabilize the situation on his border.

Don't know, but this is some of the rarest of good news in recent months.

Last One Out, Turn Off The Lights

The departure of Gary Cohn is sending shock waves through the finance wing of the Republican Party. As Ezra Klein points out, there is a crisis in staffing in the Trump White House.  No one wants to work for an unstable, meglomaniacal ignoramus apparently.

Nobody except the Republican House.

What is so striking is that you have some guys like McMaster, Mattis and possibly Tillerson who are hanging on in order to prevent Lord Smallgloves from launching a war because Fox and Friends tells him to. They probably have to swallow the regurgitated bile in the back of their throat every time they walk into Trump's presence, but you can understand why they feel the need to stay.

Then you have men with their own agendas, like Sessions' war on voting while black or Steve Mnuchin's...I have no idea what that sack of crap wants.

But everyone else is pulling the rip cords as soon as they can.  My guess is that before Tax Day, Mueller has some spectacular indictments  on the offer.  He might think about waiting until November to bring in the really big fish, so that he might have a Democratic House to protect him, but he's clearly zeroing in on some big targets.

Meanwhile, the Devin Nunes wing of the GOP continues to carry water for Trump.  True, many Republicans are balking at the trade war, as Cohn did.  But until Paul Ryan's distaste for tariffs leads him to actually take a stand against Trump (maybe removing Devin Nunes and replacing him with Trey Gowdy, for instance), it's all just words.  (Jon Chait explains why Paul Ryan hasn't definitively broken with Mango Mussolini yet.)

The Republican Party currently has the worst of both worlds.  They are watching their approval ratings be demolished by the worst president in this country's history, while unprecedented levels of corruption infest the White House and executive branch.  They are losing the only people in that White House who have a clue about anything, so the dysfunction and corruption will only get worse. And yet their pants-wetting fear of their own voters precludes them from doing anything about it.

Couldn't happen to a better bunch of people.

Not With A Bang, But A Whimper

Michael Gerson makes a convincing case that Trump would like to be a dictator, but he's just too stupid and ineffectual.  And it's not just Trump.  Last night's cable news freakshow with a drunken Sam Nunberg implicating himself in any number of falsehoods is part and parcel of Trumpistan.  Among the many lies Trump spewed from the campaign trail, "I'll have the best people" is undoubtedly a prize winner.

What is clear is that Mueller's probe is accelerating.  He has the goods on a whole slew of the swamp dwellers and carnival barkers of Trumpistan.  And contra Devin Nunes, he has the goods, because the goods exist.  The noose is tightening and Trump appears to be losing his already tenuous grasp on reality.

Given his baseline incompetence, it is possible to believe that when the House of Trump falls, it falls as a comedy of errors rather than in a maelstrom of fire and fury.  Maybe we escape this with our lives!

See Ya, Comrade

Devin Nunes really, really needs to lose his re-election bid this November.  He combines all the worst aspects of Russo-philes and crypto-authoritarianism with the cringing awfulness of a craven lickspittle.

Black Panther

I went to see Black Panther yesterday.  I think it will make a lot of money and people will talk about it.

Anyway, what struck me at first was the very direct use of African themes and visuals.  There was no soft-pedaling anything for a white audience.  There was the curious casting of Englishman Martin Freeman as an American CIA agent, but aside from that, there wasn't any effort to include white...anything.  Even the white villain was South African.

By a half hour into the movie, I had ceased to notice this.  Instead, what struck me was how the movie took a common story archetype and twisted it slightly.  One of the most powerful and common stories, especially in movies, is the Chosen One narrative.  The basic idea is that some lonely, marginalized, seemingly unexceptional figure is, in fact, the Chosen One.  Luke Skywalker isn't just a lonely moisture farmer on a desert outpost.  Harry Potter isn't just an abused orphan living under the stairs.  Buffy isn't just a neurotic teenager.  Thomas Anderson isn't just an office drone/hacker.

Black Panther subverts this narrative in an interesting way. T'Challa knows exactly who he is.  The Wakandans know exactly who they are.  Even Killmonger knows who he is.  There is no doubt in these characters about their true identity.  Instead, they work constantly to hide their true identity from others.  It's as if they are also inverting the lesson of another Marvel hero: With great power comes a great lack of responsibility.  It is actually the "villain" who forces the hero to see the flaw in this line of thinking, opening up Wakanda to the rest of the Marvel Universe and setting up this summer's Infinity Wars extravaganza. 

Unlike most Marvel movies, the dialogue was not especially sharp and banter-filled, like Iron Man, Spiderman, the recent Thor or even Ant Man. Instead, the movie's best line was given to Killmonger as he dies, "Just bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from ships, 'cause they knew death was better than bondage."  The problem with the movie is that it never knows exactly what to do with that sentiment.  Killmonger's rage is multifaceted; it's personal as well as political.  But the movie never really grapples with its political side.

Wakanda's long camouflage really was an act of cowardice, and Killmonger's anger - if destructive - was not misplaced.  T'Challa's decision to end it makes for the final twist on the Chosen One narrative.  It would be as if JK Rowling wrote all those books from Dumbledore's point of view, and in the end, Dumbledore appears to Muggles and solves all the world's problems.  T'Challa's final speech about the need to see each other as "one single tribe" is what make for his hero's journey.  It's just very different from most hero's journeys that we have seen.

So, while it's Afro-Futurism is a unique vision within the Superhero genre, there is more that is unique about Black Panther than simply how it looks or whose story it tells.

In Defense Of The Mushy Center

EJ Dionne has a sad piece about the "war on public life."  Most of it is - rightly - about the GOP war on public service, whether it be bureacrats or politicians.  The naked, seething populist movement is a war on all expertise, but with the ability to most directly impact political life.

I worry that the Left has decided to make the same mistake.  They have seen the effectiveness of the GOP's mindset of constant warfare.  Take a look at the gun control issue.  The NRA is a maximalist organization; there is no room for nuance or compromise.  This has made it successful in keeping their legislators in line.  Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge works the same way.

But those on the Left who would do the same, need to reconcile a few facts.  First, the Left needs government to work, and government works best within the mushy center of compromise.  Thus, efforts by red state Democrats to help small banks (I can't speak to how responsible the new legislation is) is by definition a massive sellout.  It might be.  Then again, it might be an effort to fix a too broad regulation that hurts small banks in it efforts to stop predatory, risky behavior by the large ones.

Second, the left of center is notoriously fractious.  Leftists invented the circular firing squad.  There should be vigorous debate over whether issues of race or gender might be  more important at any given moment.  It is not, however, usually a zero-sum game.  Prioritizing Black Lives Matter this week does not mean that next week #MeToo can't take center stage.  The Right does a good job creating synergy across its various constituencies.  The Left seems tempermentally incapable of doing that; it simply isn't hierarchical enough in its mindset.

The Left has certain structural disadvantages when it comes to elections.  Their voters are clustered in cities, giving them a plurality of the electorate, but impeding their ability to win House seats.  People are reluctant to change, yet leftward movement inevitably involves change (see Obamacare).

The future looks bright demographically for left-leaning politics, but if the Left insists on Purity Tests, they will destroy their ability to govern before they even get a chance.

Things Seem To Be Going Swimmingly

Josh Marshall suggests that as bad as we think Trumpistan has been so far, it's probably actually worse.

Thanks Republicans.  Of course, when his trade war causes a recession and his supporters lose their jobs, it will all be worth it to them, because it "trigger some libtards."

Trumponomics

It is profoundly naive and dangerous to ascribe to Trump any consistent policy positions or philosophies beyond "What makes Trump feel good?"  However, we are getting a sense of what Trumpist economic policy is looking like, and it's not what he campaigned on.

First, we have the tax cut.  This was sold to the rubes as a way for business to finally pay workers what they deserve.  Instead, companies are conducting massive stock buy backs that have inflated the worth of the executives' stock options.  This is a feature, not a bug.  Those WWC who voted for Trump will see very little benefit from the tax bill.

Second, infrastructure is a con and a weapon.  Trump's decision to oppose a badly needed rail tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan seems curious, because he ran on improving infrastructure.  Trump's actual plan for improving infrastructure mostly involves making construction companies wealthier, without actually providing any money to build and repair things.  To a degree, Trump's opposition to a Hudson River tunnel might just be some fit of pique that people in NJ and NY hate his guts.  What is clear is that Trump was never serious about rebuilding American infrastructure.

Third, we can see the simple-mindedness of his thinking in his decision to launch a trade war.  He believes that all trade is zero-sum and his need to dominate his enemies - and he sees much of the rest of the world as "enemies" - means that he needs to fight and "win" a trade war.  It's been a pretty consistent position of his over the years.  Trade wars are the idiot's version of economics, because it's based on pretty flawed understanding of how trade works.  (Some of that idiocy exists on the Left.)

Recently, I was teaching my students about the causes of the Great Depression.  Most scholars agree that it was caused by a confluence of many issues: huge wealth inequality that left large segments of the working class unable to participate in economic activity; high tariffs like Smoot-Hawley and Fordney-McCumber that led to a break down in international trade; an inelastic currency wedded to the gold standard and other forms of rigid orthodoxy; a stock market bubble; a glut of overproduction...it's complicated.

However, looking at the larger economic landscape today, we have the potential to have another mini-1929, or at least another 2008.  The inequality that has fueled the recent Great Recession is still there.  We have bubbles and debt problems that mirror the weakness of the banking system in 1929.  Low interest rates have hampered traditional inflationary monetary policy solutions and required "invented" measures like Quantitative Easing. 

Now, we get to add a trade war!  Yay! 

Thanks Republicans....

Deeply Stupid Or Wretchedly Cynical

Trump's lawyers introduced the idea that he can't testify, because it would be a "perjury trap."  A perjury trap is when police or prosecutors get someone to lie about something only tangentially related to the matter at hand.  You could make a case that Clinton's lying about Monica Lewinsky was a perjury trap, because it was only marginally related to the specifics of the Paula Jones lawsuit.  More directly, if I get you to lie about your recreational drug use, I can use that to flip you on your money laundering.  It's unethical.

That's not how Trump's lawyers define "perjury trap."  For them, Trump is so fundamentally incapable of telling the truth in any given moment, that he is bound to lie at some point within the first 20 minutes of questioning.  He can't help it.

Now, we have GOP House members saying that the Democrats completely set up poor Hope Hicks by asking her if, you know, she lied on behalf or to Donald Trump.  "Hey, Hope, are you a liar? If so, how often do you lie?"  This is roughly the concept of oversight, checks and balances.  It's important to know if the White House Communications Director lies a lot.

Republicans, however, have increasingly had to contort themselves to defend the indefensible.  They have had to embrace all sorts of bizarre ideas and behaviors in order to defend Mango Mussolini.

The Republican Party has always been more hierarchical and top-down than the Democratic Party.  It has allowed them to win elections and break norms (think Merrick Garland) in ways that the Democrats never could.  However, I think we are seeing how Trump's manifest and myriad incompetencies, idiocies and infamy are dragging down the whole party,

The question is: Do Republicans even really have a choice?  Are they doing this because they believe Trumpism or because that's just the way they do politics?

A Losing Game

Republicans currently hold a hammerlock on American politics.  They control most of the statehouses, the House, the Senate, the White House and much of the courts.  Their ability to actually make popular policy is very much up in the air, but there is no denying that they enjoy complete command of the political landscape.

However, there is also ample evidence that things are about to turn.  First, look at the Pew polling on where people stand on political issues based on their age.  The "Silent Generation" - those currently between 73 and 90 - are very conservative across the board.  The "Boomers" are somewhat evenly split.  But Generation X and the Millenials are very liberal in their perspective of immigration, religion, race and partisan identification.  Only the Silent Generation leans Republican.  Millenials are also pissed off and ready to vote (though we shall see if they follow through).

The Republican response to this, and to the Democrats very strong performance in various special elections, is simple: stop having elections.  Scott Walker in particular is known for his efforts to make partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression a priority, but he is hardly alone.  Keep an eye on Texas, as it appears to be trending purple on a wave of young, multiethnic voters.  If that happens, expect Texas Republicans to make it as hard as possible for that cohort to vote.

Basically, we have reached a point where the only way for Republicans to win elections is not to have them.  Why play a losing game?

Use The Whole Toolbox

Scott Lemieux highlights a Matthew Yglesias piece about Democrats worrying about whether highlighting Trump's foibles is the right strategy for 2018.  Critics point to the failure of Clinton to win using this strategy as evidence that Democrats need some comprehensive policy agenda, like the Contract On With America from 1994.  Both Yglesias and Lemieux feel this is misguided, and I would agree with them.

You use the whole toolbox.  Yes, you want candidates who can tailor a message to their home district.  You don't want to run an African American lesbian Socialist in rural Georgia, for instance, if you have a chance to flip it.  (If it's beyond reach...knock yourself out, Sister!)  But you should create a broad national theme, and that them should be holding the Trump Administration accountable.  Make the case - which is easy - that the Trump Administration is full of corrupt people and that Washington Republicans are enabling it.  Make the case that our government needs one branch to hold the other branch accountable.  Talk about oversight.

Then let the individual candidates tailor their specific message off that.

Meanwhile - and this is absolutely critical - don't make it "all about Trump."  It's not just Trump.  It's the current iteration of the Republican Party.  Don't let it become all about him, or you could miss the transformative effect of his presidency on political alliances.

Petri FTW

Alexandra Petri gives Hope Hicks the public obituary her career deserves.  In it, she coins a phrase:

She was also one of those Schrödinger’s Adults with whom the president has surrounded himself, fully and miraculously responsible for all sorts of major decisions until suddenly and conveniently helpless.

Here is an important insight wrapped in a joke.  It's not just that these people become "Schrodinger's Adults" by themselves.  There is an important segment of the media and governing establishment that needs these ciphers to be more than they are.  They need John Kelly to be more than a racist hack.  They need Mike Pence to be more than a religious bigot.  They need Paul Ryan to deeply care about the poor.

Meanwhile, the evidence stares them in the face that the cat is, in fact, dead.