Covid Crime Surge

 Yglesias take a look at Paul Krugman's analysis of the surge in murders during 2020-21. Because America has not centralized standards for reporting crime, murder has to stand-in for all crimes, because you pretty much have to report a dead body. Krugman's point is that crime has fallen a lot since 2020, but that Americans tend not to believe that - for some of the same reasons that they don't believe the good economic news. Republicans tend to think that the economy is terrible when Democrats are president and vice versa, and crime has functioned the same way since 2000 though not before.

Yglesias' argument is that Krugman ignores the impact of the George Floyd protests on increasing crime, because he likes to punch left on certain issues. I've been contemptuous of "Defund the Police" but I think simply saying that the Floyd protests somehow increased crime without really positing a hypothesis seems pointless contrarianism.

So here's my unified theory of why crime spiked from 2020-2021, but has since come back down to normal levels. It was both Covid and the Floyd protests, but it was also the general malignancy of the Trump years. 

One concept I've never seen linked to crime studies in journalism is the idea of legitimacy. If we think that a law in legitimate, then we rarely have to enforce it. Not never, but we don't need a police state to prevent murders, as they are relatively rare. Some communities do see lower rates of property crime, speeding and so on. If there is a large group of people who finally say to themselves, I no longer believe this law to be legitimate, then enforcing it is almost impossible (see Prohibition).

What happened during Covid was a sense that the rules were suspended. Not necessarily delegitimized, but just on lockdown. It started, I believe, on the highways. If you drove anywhere in the spring of 2020, it was insane out there. Police had other shit to do, and traffic stops were pretty far down the list. Most of this was (and frankly still is) just idiotic young male risk taking. "Dude, let's race!" is a stupid idea that I think we can all imagine coming from a 20 year old manboy's mouth.

What happened then was a process whereby once a few rules get suspended then legit sociopaths take notice. A sociopath only follows rules for fear of getting caught; if you aren't going to get caught, then do what you want. Once that happens, then the basic rule based structure gets delegitimized for others. "I'd like to follow the rules, but why should I be the only one? What if THESE are the new rules?"

In the midst of Death Race 2020, you then have the Floyd protests which very much delegitimized policing. This led to shitbird anarchists vandalizing Starbucks, but also just more people saying, "Fuck your rules." Additionally, there's been a strong pattern of police responding to criticism of their behavior by stopping work subtly. It was the actual plan of Daryl Gates during the Rodney King riots 3 decades ago: pull the cops off the street, let people see what that's like and then they will forgive the cops their transgressions in return for public order.

Finally, the corrosive effect of Trump and his disregard for the rule of law - even before January 6th - I think created a corrosive effect on civic virtue. 

The basic idea of civic virtue is that citizens in a republic should subsume their selfish interests, including breaking rules against theft, as part of their duty as citizens. It seems undeniably true that we have a broad breakdown in our sense of shared values as Americans, and Trump was a massive accelerant of that. While he didn't pioneer the idea that there were "Real Muricans" and Democrats, he took the training wheels off that rhetoric and supercharged it. His American Carnage speech or even going back to the his demonizing the Central Park Five represents a next level of contempt of one group of Americans towards another. It didn't take long for it to be hotly reciprocated. 

When (mostly) Democratic politicians and pundits talk about the threat that Trump poses to Democracy, they mostly mean his outright contempt for electoral democracy and the rule of law. Which is a true. There's a more subtle attack on democracy by Trump and the Trumpenproletariat, and that's the idea that we are not all committed to the American experiment. It's the idea that we are a Christian nation first and last, dedicated to White Patriarchal rule. 

When Ron DeSantis promised to be "Trump without the drama" this is what he was saying he would do. No insurrections or blatant corrupt business practices, but rather a continued assault on the idea of a multi-ethnic democracy - a shared civic faith.

Trump broke that down. Then Covid hit and shredded more rules. Then George Floyd delegitimized policing as a broken, corrupt profession (All Cops Are Bastards). So we saw not only young people drag racing on interstates, but we saw the abuse of service industry workers and teachers. There wasn't only a spike in murders but also a broad increase in disturbances in airplanes and restaurants. All of this was the fraying of the fabric of America's shared identity and its adherence to the rules that go along with that. 

UPDATE: It occurs to me that the vitriol over the situation in Israel/Gaza is linked to this, too. It's a legitimately awful situation where the worst people (Hamas and Netanyahu) are calling the shots and dictating what's happening, but that people all over the place are amping it up are engaged in behavior designed to ignore other perspectives.

Senility

 Since we are going to be hearing about Joe Biden's age until Election Day, I think at some point journalists need to examine the obvious mental and cognitive decline that Donald Trump is demonstrating. The example given above is only one. He confused the leaders of Turkey and Hungary; he thought Hungary shared a border with Russia. 

Part of the issue is the media's inevitable desire to tell the same story over and over again (Butter emails!) and endeavor to give a false sense of balance by playing up the foibles of one candidate to balance the manifest batshit insanity of the other. 

The other is the fact that while both Trump and Biden are showing their age in certain ways, Trump is - and always has been - a fucking idiot. Not just "stupid" but arrogantly uncurious about the world. Biden was never the Smartest Guy In The Room, but he has spent his life working in politics and public policy. That's how his brain is wired. Age has also made his stutter worse, which means he's not great at the forward facing parts of the presidency. Meanwhile, Trump never understood shit about government or governance, never wanted to learn and now appears to be in such emotional turmoil over his various legal troubles that he's decompressing before our eyes.

Even if Trump is in jail by this summer, there's a decent chance he's still the GOP nominee. It's time to start looking at his obvious aging problems just as rigorously as the media is looking at Biden's.

Red Cards

 Saturday was the final of the Rugby World Cup. The quarterfinals of this World Cup featured some of the best games I've ever seen. The heartbreaking quarter between Ireland and New Zealand was the best game I've ever seen. 

Yesterday, South Africa beat New Zealand by a single point, after the All Black captain was sent off for a red card that wasn't even initially called a foul. That meant that for all but about 15 of the 80 minutes, the All Blacks played 14 against 15. Now, it was probably a red card by the letter of the law, as it was a hit to the head with no attempt at "mitigation." However, he barely had time to drop his level a foot or so in order to mitigate it. Meanwhile, there were similar blows to the head by Springboks that weren't called.

Yes, I was rooting for New Zealand, BUT basically millions of people tuned in to watch a referee determine the World Cup. 

Bleh. Everyone deserved better.

"A Republic, Not A Democracy"

 Interesting analysis within this post by Scott Lemieux about Mike Johnson and the Rightist talking point about how we are a "republic not a democracy". The basic idea that Christitanist authoritarians like Johnson are advancing is that we cannot have majority rule, because a tyranny of the majority is what the Framers wanted to prevent. There is some small truth in that, as they did want to prevent "democracy" when they wrote the Constitution in 1787. 

The problem is that the country has engaged in almost 250 years of political evolution from that point. Almost immediately, you had the forces roughly aligned with Jefferson arguing for more democracy. One of the most contentious issues from 1790-1820 was the degree to which America should be a "democracy" or have government be more buffered from popular sentiment. The winner of that argument was "democracy". In fact, trivia note, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren originally called their political party "The Democracy."

Since 1830, the long historical trend has been to make America more democratic. The 14th and 15th Amendment advanced the citizenship of Blacks and the suffrage of Black men. The 19th amendment extended the vote to women. The 26th amendment lowered the voting age to 18. There have been numerous Federal efforts to expand, rather than contract, access to the ballot. 

This, of course, shows up on Republican jurisprudence as "originalism", the idea that we must read the Constitution as the people in 1787 intended it. This stands in refutation of statements like Madison's that the Constitution was meant to grow and change. 

The practical application of "originalism" and "republic not a democracy" is to work around the fact that the Republican policy agenda is really unpopular. To the degree that large numbers of people vote Republican, they are primarily voting against Democrats. Most people want the following

- A return to Roe v Wade
- Universal background checks and some restrictions on gun ownership
- Higher taxes on the wealthy
- A generally liberal, even libertarian, outlook on culture war issues
- More government involvement in providing health care coverage
- Resistance to Russian aggression

If we actually voted on issues instead of personality and "vibes" I'd argue that Democrats would currently win about 60% of a national referendum. People like Johnson understand that and therefore want to make sure that majority rule is thwarted, not because majority rule is bad, but because it is bad for them.

Vetting Is Important

 The rapid emergence of Mike Johnson (R-Gilead) came very quickly and lacked a great deal of third party vetting. Most people are focusing on Johnson's fairly extreme theocratic rhetoric and beliefs and rightly so. Josh Marshall, however, has wondered about the story surrounding Johnson's "adopted" Black son.

I idly wondered about whether Johnson is having an affair with a male staffer, given how virulently anti-gay he is. The closets of fundamentalists Christians are usually crowded places. But the idea that he's got some sort of relationship with this person named Michael is...odd.

How Weak Is Mike Johnson?

 Martin Longman takes a look at how Johnson remains as hamstrung by the Chaos Caucus as McCarthy was. The emerging issue of a government shutdown will give us an answer to the question "Is our Republicans learning?"

Basically, we are headed for a shutdown in mid-November. Even if the House could pass a budget in time (I doubt they will) their horror show of a budget will not get passed the Senate or Biden. At which point, there will need to be a compromise budget. Anyone think the GOP hardliners will allow a compromise to occur?

So what will Johnson do? A Continuing Resolution brought down McCarthy, so the question is, would Johnson bring forth a CR to allow a few weeks to finish the budget negotiations? Would Gaetz pull the ripcord again? What are Johnson's feelings about a motion to vacate? Gaetz's? Having proven what a bunch of dipshits they are, will they simply avoid another crisis of their own making? Was the real issue just McCarthy and Johnson's credentials as an American Taliban enough to protect him?

Longman mentions a discharge petition, which could allow for a bill Johnson doesn't want a vote on to be brought to a vote. The same math applies. Are there about 10 Republicans who don't want to shutdown the government? Who want to fund Ukraine's defense? On the one hand, it would allow Johnson to avoid calling a vote on a bill that might lead to a motion to vacate. On the other, it would make him look like an impotent Speaker.

The manifest insanity of the majority of the GOP House was on display for weeks. If they turn around and screw things up even more, one would hope - probably in vain - that the American people might overlook the fact that Biden is a bit too old or that gasoline costs more than we'd like and vote this fucking lunatics out of power.

I mean, the economic news seems pretty freaking good right now, so maybe we can avoid the collapse of American democracy. Again.

It's The Goddamned Guns

 And the fact that Second Amendment fundamentalists and absolutists won't let us keep guns from people with mental illness.

Good Job, Everybody

 After rejecting Gym Jordan, the House seemed ready to put up a mildly odious right winger who was skeptical of Trump's lies about 2020. That lasted all of four hours. 

Instead, the GOP has managed to land on an even worse candidate for Speaker! He may not be as repellent as Jordan on style points, but he's just as dangerous.

Hopefully, there are a handful of Republicans who are fed up with the Big Lie bullshit and will block him.

At this point, if the choice is Johnson or, I dunno, Kevin McCarthy, Democrats might need to vote for McCarthy. Johnson might be the scariest authoritarian stooge the Chaos Caucus has vomited up yet.

UPDATE: Congratulations. They've elected a bigot and an authoritarian to be Speaker of the House.

The question now, of course, is whether this bruising fight will mean that the GOP will seek to moderate on issues like Ukraine and keeping the government open. By "moderating" I mean will they allow votes on the floor and not punish vulnerable members for voting for measures that might not pass the litmus test of Mike Johnson's Christianist beliefs.

For example: the Senate will pass a bill giving aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Pro-Putinist members of the GOP would prefer to vote on those as separate measures, so they can try and strip aid to Ukraine away. That position - denying aid to Ukraine - would not get a majority vote if it got to the floor. So Johnson could simply not bring the bill to the floor. 

Ideally, they find a way to at least keep aid flowing and the government open, while still voting on toxic messaging bills on abortion and LGBTQ rights. Johnson holds awful, awful positions. I hope the House tries to pass them, they die in the Senate and Hakeem Jeffries is elected Speaker in January 2025.

Mark Meadows Flips

 Not in Georgia, though one would think that's a matter of time, but in Jack Smith's election case.

I thought it was more likely than not that Trump would get convicted on at least one of the cases, and more than likely multiple cases.

Now, it sure as hell looks like he will be in jail before the Republican primaries are completed.

If so, does he win the nomination? I think looking at the GOP Speaker Debacle, the odds are really good that he win the nomination going away.

The GOP As A Failed State

 Josh Marshall routinely refers to a William Saletan quote that is among the most pithy and accurate summations of Trumpistan: "The GOP is a failed state and Donald Trump is its warlord." That's right up there with Adam Serwer's "The cruelty is the point."

Today's news that Tom Emmer won the plurality of the GOP caucus, but cannot unify the caucus behind his bid. Marshall sums it up nicely:

What we see here is the same core message of the last three weeks and in many ways the last dozen years. The only way to get to 217, the hold outs argue, is a coalition of the rule-breakers and the rule-followers. For years the latter group has mostly gone along with that. What happened last week is that a section of the rule-followers rebelled and wouldn’t have it.

This is more basic than a fractured caucus or any of the personalities involved. It is the logical end result of a party and political movement based on rule-breaking, as a central value and mode of operation. When rule-breaking becomes the norm organizations and polities fall apart … without a strongman. For eight years Donald Trump has been that strongman.

That's the current crisis in American democracy. Too much of the GOP has decided that the rules that govern our country are invalid if they don't work on behalf of the GOP, or in other words, they do not believe in rules as rules.

Even as Trump's co-conspirators in the efforts to destroy electoral democracy are admitting in court that it was all bullshit, we can see the House continue to flounder between the few Republicans who still believe in rules-based governance and the Trumpist wing of an authoritarian movement.

Careful Out There

 Shoes are dropping every which way.

Jenna Ellis copping a plea and presumably cooperating with prosecutors means that Fani Willis (and presumably Jack Smith) are getting closer and closer to Trump with rock solid evidence. 

CNN has its "war boner" on with breathless reporting from Israel, but this steady drip of Trump co-defendants flipping is a really big story, methinks. 

Free Speech

 There is a certain sort of Old School Liberal pundit who has been beating the drums against the tendency of academic institutions in particular from restricting mildly controversial speech. My general feeling was, "OK, I see your point, but is that really the most pressing issue right now?"

The rhetorical conflagration over the Israeli-Hamas War has actually validated a lot of their concerns. As someone who has been engaged a bit with this as an academic, I've been skeptical of the idea of "trauma" or "harm" from speech which might be controversial. I never had a problem with the judicious use of "trigger warnings" because those would simply warn someone that the short story or primary source that they were about to read might have a reference to abuse. No need to blindside someone. The idea, however, that perhaps I shouldn't assign primary sources that use the N-word strikes me as poor history. You need to look that square in the face.

More broadly, as Jon Chait and Matthew Yglesias have argued, this moment has seen a certain shift against the more left wing advocates for speech codes and restrictions, as they advocate for Palestinians. Having shut down certain topics or voices, now they are the ones being "silenced". In a more reflective moment, this would suggest a return to what Yglesias calls "principled free speech". Sure, maybe you can restrict actual Nazis from speaking, but advocating for a Palestinian state is not Nazism we shouldn't make that leap. 

About 15 years ago, there was a movement in academia to prioritize "grit" as a form of character education that transcended and even lay the groundwork for other success. One reason why student-athletes tend to succeed after graduation is that athletics is very clearly about "grit" - hard work, overcoming adversity and navigating setbacks. In an academic climate where we prioritize sanitizing speech to a degree that some schools are doing, we rob students of having to wrestle with difficult questions.  The very point of free speech is to provoke thought. 

A few years back, the school brought in a speaker who said, "Sweatshops are good, actually." It was intentionally provocative, as the speaker's point was that textiles and garment work is, in fact, the first step in economically development. Citizens of poor countries actually choose to work in what we would consider tough working conditions, because it still beats trying to eek a living of subsistence farming. The provocation of that talk may have been a bit upsetting from a student from, say, Thailand or Vietnam. At the same time, it prompted debate and introspection.

Simply making an outlandish claim - performative trolling - is not the goal of free speech. Even free speech advocates do not countenance threatening speech - or rather physically threatening speech. You should absolutely "threaten" your audience's ideas. 

We have, at the moment, a public discourse that it poisoned by trolling - performatively outlandish statements. What this does to non-trolls is make them dismissive of most challenging forms of speech. Was the "Sweatshops are good, actually" guy a troll? No, but you could easily mistake him for one. Secondly, the ubiquity of trolls prompts people to take positions and defend them without really engaging in the counterargument, because the counterargument is not being made in good faith.

My father and I would argue hammer and tongs over any damned thing. Because we loved each other, we could get heated but never resentful. Hell, he tried to argue about the deficit on his literal death bed. What we have created in our schools is a climate where you can't have controversial discussions. It stems from an online environment (which our kids know too well) poisoned by trolling and by an expansion of the idea of "harm" to include things which are really just discomfiting. 

My hope is the fact that these things come in waves, and perhaps the rhetorical venom that has been unleashed over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will lead to some people opening up to more guardrails to actually allow free speech. Or maybe - as with so many other things - the heated online environment has broken something irreparably. If so, we will be poorer for it.

The Rules Of War

 I really recommend reading Robert Farley's explanation of what the Law of Armed Conflict is about. The basic idea is that there is "just war" (jus ad bellum) and "justice within war" (jus in bello). The interesting point he makes is that there are just wars - clear wars of self-defense would qualify - but there is also lawful conduct within wars and it's really important that they remain separate.

Why? Hamas believes its cause is just, given the treatment of Palestinians by Israel. Israel believes its cause is just, because every country has a right to security and self-defense. 

However, Hamas believing its cause us just (jus ad bellum) does not give it license to kill civilians in violation of jus in bello. The similar restraint applies to Israel. They have a right to self-defense, but they have nuclear weapons and could simply erase Gaza from the face of the earth. 

Those that argue that the justice of the Palestinian cause allows Hamas to violate jus in bello are basically denying that jus in bello exists and if that is true, why should the IDF abide by the rules of war regarding civilians. If the justice of your cause means you can just kill civilians at will, then that applies to both sides. 

This is, of course, a nuanced and subtle distinction that I'm sure will convince people on social media.

Are We On The Verge of War with Iran?

 It's not entirely implausible, but I would have to think that the following three things are true:

- Biden does not want the US to go to war in the Middle East. The show of force feels very much to me like a warning, not a preparation. The last thing he wants are dead servicemen on Al Jazeera and the GOP baying for blood.

- I can't see the upside to war for Iran either. Their economy is in the shitter; the regime's legitimacy among young people is quite low; they are more than content to launch attacks via proxies as long as it doesn't come back and bite them in the ass.

- The idea that Russia prompted the Hamas attack is plausible but a bit too spy-melodrama for me. What's more a US-Iranian war would deprive them of their best source of military drones.

Wars have happened because one or more parties makes catastrophic mistakes. Look at Putin in Ukraine. I don't think any of the principles have any interest in a war, however.

Thank Dog, Trump isn't president.

The Precipice

 Thomas Friedman is not my favorite columnist, but I agree with his take on the imminent catastrophe that is about to unfold in Gaza. Israel absolutely has a right to self-defense that includes taking on Hamas in Gaza. However, as Friedman notes, the hot-house online environment means that incidents like whatever happened at that hospital will triple or double. As I originally wrote immediately after the attacks, Hamas wants Israel to invade Hamas. Palestinian deaths are the point.

I don't necessarily agree that we are on the cusp of a wider war, though we certainly could be. What I do agree with is that Israeli policy has been badly damaged by Netanyahu's alliance with the far right settler movement on the West Bank. There is not outcome that I can see that provide lasting security via a two-state solution when Netanyahu and his far right enablers hold power. 

Pudding Fingers v Dark Brandon

 Betty Cracker links to an analysis (post-mortem?) of DeSantis' "extremely online" campaign. At the end there's an important note about "memes" in politics. If you can laugh them off, you can neutralize them, but anyone who has been online knows, you can't feed the trolls. DeSantis is so abjectly humorless that he can't roll with the punches. Meanwhile, Biden and his campaign turned "Fuck you, Biden" into "Dark Brandon". They're even selling Dark Brandon coffee mugs. 

Trump's "sense of humor" is pretty awful, even if many of his Deplorable think he's hilarious. Nevertheless, some sort of bullying sense of humor does exist in Trump, and as much as a bully as DeSantis is, he has no wit. 

The Economy

 One thing that has some pundits baffled is how people's opinion of the economy seems to be divorced from the actual economic situation. Paul Campos gives a few possible explanations. His first is right wing media fear mongering on the economy, but it's hardly just Fox saying the economy is bad. You get a lot of headlines like "Economy Adds 350,000 Jobs, Putting Biden In A Bind."  Like...what? We have full employment, wages are outpacing inflation and what's more - and I think hopeful - is that people tend to say that their economic situation is good, but that the economy is bad. 

There's a very real lag in people's perception of the economy and the actual economic recovery. When Clinton and Democrats got hammered in 1994 and Obama in 2010, it was because a recovery had started, but it didn't feel like a recovery. Campos talks about how people are loss averse. They notice their losses more than their gains. In the context of inflation - which is something most people have not really experiences as adults - people are simply seeing higher prices more than they are seeing their higher wages.

What's more, there are two sectors that Campos notes - housing and gasoline - that remain sticky in terms of inflation. Gasoline is pretty clearly linked to sanctions on Russia and Saudi Arabia's being a huge dick. I have to wonder if Saudi Arabia decides to change course on oil prices in light of the recent Israeli-Hamas War. Probably not. 

Housing is one that I confess baffles me. This is a terrible time to buy a house. Prices are high and interest rates are too burdensome to get a new mortgage. So, one would think demand would be low. Yet, precisely because interest rates are high, people aren't selling, which keeps supply low. Both create a really weird increase in housing costs that technically shouldn't be happening.

There's another question of supply in some markets where investors are buying up real estate to use as short term rentals. In particularly pricey markets, that could be bad for inventory. One thing that needs to happen, though, is more building of housing units. Again, tough to do when interest rates are sky-high. 

If we were in a recession, then doomerism on the economy would make sense. If we were coming out of a recession, then our current rate of job and wage growth would lead me to believe that people's feelings about the economy would improve before election day. But the doomerism and partisan views on the economy create a backbeat of depressing news and the unusual experience of inflation has people on edge.

It would be really nice for the future of democracy if that changed soon.

Whomp Whomp

 Gym Jordan is on his way to another defeat for Speaker. Looks like a few more Republicans are defecting, as was expected. There are a few no-shows so far, but basically this is the 17th Speaker election in 2023 where Hakeem Jeffries won the most votes. 

I'll let Alexandra Petri play us out.

The Most Important News Story of October 19, 2023

 It's not the war in Israel. Nothing much has changed there. Nor is it the online and real world clashes between enraged camps of pro-Israel and pro-Palestinians, again not much has changed. 

It's not the ongoing dysfunction of the House GOP, as nothing has changed there either. 

Oh, not Ukraine, not that anyone cares anymore.

Nope, the most important story of the day is Sidney Powell flipping on Donald Trump in the Georgia election case. Powell was in the room with Trump and his closest associates when plans were made to pressure Georgia's election workers. She was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the DC elections case, but once you flip the first time, it's pretty easy to keep flipping.

Maybe Powell was just a mouthpiece sent out to parrot insane talking points from others. But the scope of the plea deal suggests that she is offering something of real value to Fani Willis. I'm guessing Jack Smith will know what she knows fairly soon, if he doesn't already.

With Powell flipping, the pressure is now on other defendants to flip or they will go to prison. Willis (and Smith) only truly care about Trump. They will lighten the sentences of anyone who will take a plea deal.

The odds of Trump being in prison on election day next year just increased by quite a bit.

Your Daily Narcissist

 And it isn't Trump!

No, the Narcissist of the Day is Cornell West. West, as a scholar, had a good idea 35 years ago and rode that to a sort of scholarly celebrity. However, he backed Ralph Nader in 2000. That's a huge negative against him in my book. When he backed Jill Stein in 2016, that's it. Fuck that guy. He actually came to our school and I refused to go see him out of spite.

Now, he's launched a similar vanity campaign that is very specifically designed to siphon votes from Biden. And who's funding it? Harlan Fucking Crow. 

I have a hunch that the next six months will see Biden's election numbers improve as Trump's legal troubles accelerate and people realize that their choice - like it or not - is between a guy you wished were ten years younger and a guy you wished was in prison already.

Trump's only avenue to winning is a third party spoiler like West. That seems to be his raison d'etre in politics: electing Republicans with a minority of the vote.

Tripping Over Oneself In The Rush To Be First

 Yesterday there was horrific news about an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza. Only, it turns out that the most likely explanation is a failed rocket launch by Islamic Jihad, a group allied with Hamas. 

As Marshall notes, the fog of war is a real thing. The initial reports of the attack were from Hamas, which should be taken with a pause for perspective. As one commentator noted, the fact that we know think it was a failed missile launch and it certainly does not look like anything more was damaged than a parking lot is almost irrelevant. In the super-charged world of 24 hour news cycle and social media "expertise" the narrative is now that Israel hit a hospital. Subsequent facts aren't especially helpful in changing minds that don't want to be changed.

If there is one advantage to Biden's age it is that he is not the sort to rush to judgment. He's been in enough rooms where he's seen that rush to judgment and been around for the awful aftermath. Maybe it's just the historian in me, but calm the fuck down people. You have no idea what the world will look like in 2 days, much less two years or two decades. The ephemera of the CNN/Twitter landscape will melt away. Clio, the Muse of History, gets the last word.

This Is Objectively Hilarious

 Is it funny that Gym Jordan failed to win the speakership on the first ballot? Yes.

Is it drop dead hilarious that Kevin McCarthy - a man who is where he is because he couldn't count votes - thought that he would win? Also yes.

With 20 Republicans holding out against Jordan, I have a hunch more will join the holdouts. There were some who likely voted for Jordan because they wanted this embarrassment over. If Jordan can't do that they will cast about for one who might.

I still think Elise Stefanik is just waiting for someone else to nominate her as a consensus candidate.

Speaker Jordan Will Be Bad For Everyone

 It looks like Gym Jordan might actually be able to win the Speaker's gavel, at least temporarily. All Speakerships are temporary at this point. 

Jordan is a full-on Trumpist nutcase with a sizable scandal in his past. As Josh Marshall notes, the facts really aren't in doubt that the abuse of wrestlers at OSU took place. Jordan denies knowing about it, but there are a host of wrestlers who say they told him and he did nothing. So, you have Jordan as both an enabler or apologist for sexual abuse. You also have him repeatedly (allegedly) lying about it. 

I have no doubt that Jordan will be a terrible, toxic figure as Speaker. He will proceed to impeach Biden for bullshit reasons, he will shutdown the government, he might try to accelerate defaulting on the debt. He will be second in line to the fucking presidency. 

However, it's pretty clear at this point that being involved in obvious lying and being at best complicit in sexual abuse is not a deal breaker for the GOP. Trump was effectively found guilty of sexual assaulting E. Jean Carroll, plus the Access Hollywood tape...I mean.

There have been a number of takes recently by analysts of just how bad Biden's polling is. Some of that is his age. Some of that is the trickiness of polling in general, but especially this far out from the election. However, it is pretty clear that Donald Trump still enjoys a floor of 40% approval despite being among the worst Americans ever to draw breath.

Jim Jordan is Mother Teresa next to that fucker, so - yeah - looks like he'll be the next Speaker.

Jewish Voices

 This Balloon Juice post that starts with a brilliant piece of satire by Alexandra Petri ends with an excerpt by Julia Ioffe, who fled Russia for Israel and now work in the US. Ioffe is typical of what we might call Jewish liberals who can, with real clarity, see that Israel absolutely has to defend itself, but that the way it defends itself makes groups like Hamas possible. For non-Jews, this line seems increasingly difficult to walk. There is a Manichean impulse to either support Israel and especially Netanyahu completely and explicitly or to laud the horrific terrorist attacks launched last week. 

I can understand why Palestinians are rallying to condemn Israel's response. There is not, however, a lot of perspective offered by Palestinians in the West about how Hamas is absolutely awful. There is even less among allies, a motley collection of leftist groups, who take perhaps the most maximalist positions. That was the point of Petri's piece, targeting those who seemingly find a way to excuse the killing of children. The week long argument over whether Israeli children were beheaded or simply had their heads shot of is one of the most appalling things I have witnessed. Such arguments have tended to reinforce the impulse among Israel's defenders - Jews and not - to dehumanize their Palestinian opponents.

So, it's with some surprise that the most measured voices are coming from Jews with some experience with actually living in Israel. Most of them are politically liberal and can see and understand the repressive nature of Netanyahu's policies towards both Gaza and the West Bank. The settlement movement - an alliance between Netanyahu and the far right elements of Israeli politics - is the clearest example of the Israeli right's abandonment of the "two state solution". It has always been Netanyahu's plan to marginalize reasonable Palestinian voices; he wants Hamas to have power in Gaza. 

The ability to support Israel's security and criticize Netanyahu and agree that Hamas must be dealt with in a harsh and punitive manner and hope that this can be accomplished without killing Palestinian children is a complicated thing to believe. What's more, it is a level of nuance and sophistication in thinking and talking that it totally impossible on social media. I theme I saw on Twitter last night was "Thank God this website didn't exist on 9/11." Which is true, but 9/11 unleashed the same sort of Manichean thinking in the United States: Axis of Evil; With Us Or Against Us; Freedom Fries. 

Bush's evangelical insistence on easy extremes led to terrible policy outcomes like the Iraq War. Jewish voices have been at the forefront of rejecting that sort of thinking. Will anyone listen?

Poisoned Discourse

 I don't usually dive into the comments at LGM, but Paul Campos notes that threads pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian war have gotten pretty toxic. I've certainly noticed this on Twitter (still not calling it X). There's been a running and frankly surreal debate about whether Israeli babies were decapitated by Hamas fighters or merely had their heads blown off.  Seriously, that's the question. That of course devolves into "but what about Palestinian babies' heads?"

There is a very real and serious debate going on about Israel's response to the atrocities last weekend. Hamas needs to be reduced to levels where they can neither dominate Gaza nor threaten Israel. The insolvable problem is that you can't eradicate Hamas without killing Palestinian civilians. As I argued earlier, Hamas needs and wants dead civilians. Their actions were designed to kill Palestinians as much as Israelis. Israel can kill 75% of Hamas and it will reconstitute itself in a few years.

The intractability of the Palestinian question is symbolized by the fact that Egypt won't let Palestinians leave Gaza either. There simply is no solution to a problem if you take each sides' bedrock position. There is no solution for Palestinians that does not include a Palestinian state, presumably including East Jerusalem. For Hamas, the very existence of Israel is illegitimate. There is no solution for Israel that does not include 100% guarantees that Israel will be safe and maintain control of Jerusalem. For Likud, there is no solution that does not include control of most of the West Bank.

The result is that you have a war being fought by two sides that have no potential for peace until the other is destroyed. Add to that the overwhelming capability of the IDF and the concentrated population center of Gaza and you have a very, very unpleasant situation.

What seems to be lost - especially among the sort of campus radicals who have suddenly embraced Hamas - is that war does not follow logic or theory the way you might think outside of the framework of war. Once war starts, it makes its own demands and enforces its own rules. We talk about the "rules of war" but those only exist if each side decides they exist. Hamas killed children and civilians. Israel is responding with actions that are killing children and civilians. Neither thing "should" happen under the rules of war, but again those "rules" are unenforceable. 

For the cosseted campus radicals cheering on the "decolonizing" actions of Hamas or the rabid genocidal mutterings of many pro-Israeli Americans, the actual impact and conduct of war is so remote from their experience that this is all just performative posturing. It's actually among Israelis and Palestinians that you see the most nuanced view of this conflict. There are so many voices on both sides that understand that there is no long term peace that does not include a viable Palestinian state. Hamas' actions, however, make that Palestinian state more remote than ever. 

The tragedy of this latest act in the longer running tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that neither side is going to emerge from this more secure. Palestinians are going to die simply by their proximity to Hamas, not because they agree with them...until the actions of the IDF will convince them that Hamas is right. Israel will squander the moral high ground with every civilian casualty in Gaza. Creating a Palestinian state - even in the West Bank - will be unthinkable and politically untenable.

No one is going to win this war. Israel will "defeat" Hamas by killing many of them and destroying their infrastructure in Gaza, but this will not bring long term peace. Hamas has had a "catastrophic victory" that exceeded their expectations, but this will bring about more death and destruction in Gaza than they can stand.

Shakespeare wrote "Cry 'havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war"/that this foul deed shall smell above the earth/with carrion men, groaning for burial." What the internet tough guys and cosplay revolutionaries don't grasp is that "havoc" and chaos are not foundations to build upon.

Cults

 Paul Campos hits on an important idea here: we live in an Age of Cults. These are fundamentally irrational belief systems that rely on the idea that cult members have some special knowledge that non-cult members don't have. The various cults that Campos lists are overlapping niche areas of belief (I guess Trumpism can't be considered niche) that paint a picture of "savvy" inside knowledge. 

Take the Ur-Cult: QAnon. Adherents cling to a bonkers belief with no medical or criminal evidence to support it: the harvesting of hormones from children. The messianic return of JFK, Jr. is just the icing on the crazy cake, but the basic populist idea of elites killing children has no rational basis in anything. Actual events like Epstein can be folded into the belief system as needed. 

I know that I've had students who believe in the genius of Elon Musk and the appeal of crypto, which is a sort of techno-cult. Of course, the evangelical protestants and fundamentalist Catholics who make up the Republican base constitute a form of unreasoned belief in the divine mission of Donald Fucking Trump. Belief in a form of mystical Christianity can, I guess, lead you to believe that that odious ambulatory sack of selfishness was sent her by God.  Sure, Jan.

The question Campos doesn't address is why we live in an age of Cults. If I had to guess, I'd say it's precisely because we live in an increasingly secular world. The ancient religious texts are not especially relevant in language or literal meaning to millions of Americans. Religion, for all its many faults, provides a sense of purpose and belonging. Those are largely absent in modern life. 

People adrift will cling to anything that floats, I guess. There was a time when religious "awakenings" led to reforms, but these cults aren't really about that.  

Today In American Authoritarianism

 Last night's development that Steve Scalise has dropped out of the Speaker race was only surprising as a matter of timing. It was going to happen eventually, it's just surprising it happened without a floor vote. As Josh Marshall notes, this is part and parcel of the Republican Party's abandonment of basic democratic principles, especially among the Chaos Caucus and Trumpenproletariat. If you lose an election - like Jim Jordan did - then you concede and congratulation your opponent and everyone agrees to abide by the result. As Marshall says, that's pretty much the definition of a caucus. Put another way, there are almost certainly a dozen or more Democrats who think they'd be a better leader than Hakeem Jeffries; politicians are ambitious animals with no shortage of ego. If we ever have another Speaker vote, however, every Democrat will vote for Jeffries, because he won the caucus vote.

The Chaos Caucus is simply an extension of Trump's petulant tantrums as a form of politics. The lesson the GOP learned from Trump's "inside straight" in 2016 was that what were once considered career-ending transgressions are not just clickbait and fund raising opportunities. (Think Trump raising money off his fucking mug shot.) The reason most GOP House members are furious at Gaetz and the rest of the wrecking crew is that they know exactly why Gaetz is doing this (notoriety, money, clicks), because they would likely do the same in different circumstances.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say the most likely Republican to become Speaker is Elise Stefanik. She's embraced enough of the crazy and attached her lips most assiduously to Trump's ass, but she's also got enough cred with the mainstream. Having said that, if we go another week or two - and we very much could - then I could see a cohort of about ten to fifteen Republicans voting "present" and letting Jeffries slip into office at least for a spell to pass a CR and perhaps aid to Israel and Ukraine.

The fact that tens of millions of Americans will vote for this dysfunctional party is appalling. 

There Won't Be A Speaker Anytime Soon

 The news that Steve Scalise won the internal ballot within the GOP caucus has made him a sort of front runner to be the next Speaker. The margin over Jim Jordan was pretty small and there's no margin for error. Scalise did not try for a vote yesterday because he knows he does not have the votes.

There are clearly a number of irreconcilables on both sides. Since the next Speaker can only afford to lose 3-4 votes, there's simply no way to elect a Speaker between Scalise and Jordan. My money remains on Elise Stefanik being a compromise candidate after a days of fruitless and failed efforts for one of these two awful people to become the leader of the larger group of awful people.

Meanwhile, Democrats can rail against the fact that we can't appropriate aid to Israel and Ukraine while the GOP cannibalizes itself. 

A For Attention

 Nancy Mace is a fascinating case study in the degradation of the Republican Party. She basically represent her own ego rather than her constituents. Her career in Congress is about getting in front of cameras. As an conventionally attractive woman who seemed to appalled by Trump's coup attempt, she was branded as a possible post-Trump standard bearer for the Republican Party. In fact, her criticism of Trump (she did not go so far as to vote to impeach) led to a primary challenge that must've threatened her ability to get on TV. So, she's now engaged in nonsense media stunts and voting like a MAGAt, even going so far as to join with the Chaos Caucus to oust McCarthy.  McCarthy helped her hold on to her seat when Trump endorsed her primary challenger. She also thinks Jim Jordan is a "man of his word."

Look, are there attention mongers in the Democratic caucus? Sure. But ultimately if you're a Democrat, the expectation is that you've come to Washington DC to do work. Will you have to "be a politician"? Of course, but if you aren't actually legislating, your support is going to be pretty shallow. I can't think of any Republicans who are taking the lead on legislating. They exist, but they are in the shadows while vile creatures like Nancy Mace trample widows that stand between them and a camera.

Also, whoever came up with that Scarlett Letter stunt never read the book.  Or maybe that was the point, to make a mockery of the idea of actually reading books.

Appropriate Bothsides

 (ed note: sorry for late posting, if you care. weird day)

Jon Chait like to bothsides a lot of issues even while saying that the Right is worse. "Both Trumpists and leftists want to ban certain books, but - yeah - Trumpists are worse." That sort of thing.

He does hit on a good example of really egregious conduct and speech on both the far left and right with regards to Gaza. Leftists - by that I mean those who see Bernie Sanders as a sell-out - have rallied around Hamas and given them cover behind the very real list of Palestinian grievances. They are a small but very vocal number. On the right, you basically have calls for genocide in Gaza. 

As Chait notes, both positions deny one side's humanity. For Palestinian sympathizers, Israelis aren't people, they are oppressors. For a certain faction of Israeli sympathizers, every Palestinian in Gaza is culpable and if they die, they die.

Not to be too on the nose, but this mindset is precisely why the Palestinian question has not and likely will not be resolved. No one really wants the Palestinians to have Israel except maybe Iran and Syria. Egypt won't open its borders to Gaza anymore than Israel will. Palestinians are also not especially eager to live anywhere else except what they see as their homeland. Israel can point to this weekend and note that there really is no negotiated settlement possible with Palestinians.

At no point is there any incentive to see the warring sides as human beings. If you live in Gaza and see the daily misery there, how can Israelis be anything but inhuman monsters? If you see the atrocities and crimes against nature were perpetrated by Hamas, how can Palestinians be anything but inhuman monsters?

This is how the cycle of violence replicates over generations. Israel is wrong. The Palestinians are wrong. Israel is right. The Palestinians are right.

Needless to say that sort of paradox and nuance is not the currency of online aggrievement and outrage. 

Terrorism Is A Means, Not An End

 Martin Longman takes a brief biographical detour before making some good points about this weekend's terrorist attack in Israel. Here's his main point:

Of course, the end game is the first thing people should think about before they start shooting. One thing almost everyone seems to agree about is that Hamas was motivated by a desire to derail any deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia to normalize relations. I think they’ll be successful in that because I can’t imagine a response from Israel that won’t outrage the Muslim world and make it impossible for the Saudis to continue negotiations.

Still, much like America after 9/11, the main thing Israel has in their favor right now is sympathy from much of the world, including many erstwhile critics. America foolishly squandered that good will, and Israel should be mindful not to senselessly repeat the mistake. I know they will want to deter a repeat attack of this nature, and they think a disproportionate response is the only way to accomplish that. I also know that concessions in the near term are both politically difficult and run counter to deterrence. But cool heads are needed.

Terrorism is the tactic of the weaker side. It uses the vulnerability of its opponents - usually some form of open society - to inflict horrific deaths intended to prompt a response. It doesn't seem like most people remember what the actual point of 9/11 was. It was to drag America into a series of wars in the Middle East that would make the US and the West more generally toxic to the Muslim world. Americans killing Muslims was designed to recreate the strict piety that Bin Laden aspired to for the Muslim world. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were exactly what Bin Laden wanted.

And it failed. Certainly America's actions in Iraq were inexcusable, but the massive blowback against America and the West didn't exactly happen. Certainly Al Qaeda's heirs in ISIS were unable to establish the Wahhabist caliphate that was supposed to be the "endgame" for the atrocity of 9/11.

The growing consensus is that Hamas is trying to derail the normalization of relations between Israel and the Persian Gulf states. They commit atrocities and we know that Israel does not allow terror attacks to go unpunished. Thousands are going to die in Gaza before all this is over and it will be impossible for Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel. 

What Hamas must have realized is that Palestinians have lost the attention of the rest of the Arab world. In choosing between the suffering of Gaza and the economic and security benefits of relations with Israel, the latter wins. Here was their last opportunity to maintain the allegiance of other Arab groups in the Middle East.

It seems clear that Iran (and I'm guessing Syria) had a hand in planning the attacks. Both Iran and Syria have the same interest in derailing the normalization process. 

(Let's take a moment to reflect on who was NOT a part of Hamas or Iran's plans: the United States. Not everything is about us. For everyone on the Right and Left pointing a finger at Biden or Raytheon or what the fuck ever, shut up. It's not about us. It's not about "weakness"; it's not about "colonialism". Stop it.)

Hamas will likely get the response it wants. Thousands of Palestinians in Gaza are going to die. That's what they want. Let's be really clear about that: Hamas wants and needs dead Palestinians. Israel is so outraged that they will get that response. What the experience with 9/11 suggests is that Hamas is not guaranteed the second part of their plan. They might exhaust the goodwill Israel has at the moment, by luring them into the crowded streets of Gaza and creating a free fire zone that will leave thousands dead. The central calculus of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States won't really change, though. They might not be able to normalize relations in 2024, but memories will fade and the incentives will remains the same.

As for Israel, it will be interesting, I guess, to see if Netanyahu survives this. His corrupt hold on power was predicated on national security. He failed. In a sane world, he would be finished, but violence first destroys logic before even the dead have been buried. 

I spoke to a friend in Tel Aviv to see if he was alright. He was but he said, "Much ugliness to follow."

That is Hamas' goal. They want the ugly.

Just The Worst People

 I generally hold a position about the past that everything that happened led us to whatever moment we are in and wanting it to be different is pointless. You don't get emancipation without the tragedy of the Civil War; you don't get Pax Americana and the state of Israel without the horrors of the Holocaust. When Trump won, I thought, "If we can survive him, then we might see then American people turn on the unpopular GOP positions."

While I still hold out hope that Trumpism is repudiated next November and he winds up in jail, I'm afraid the damage he has done to our politics could last decades. In particular, the lying viciousness that typifies his every utterance has become the media strategy for the entire GOP.

Yesterday's horrific attacks in Israel should have been a moment when Americans rallied together against terrorism and for our long time ally, Israel. Instead, we have gotten a non-stop lying campaign about the Iranian money in Doha having funded the attacks. Biden is "responsible" for the attacks because he negotiated a deal to bring back Americans in return for unfreezing Iranian funds held by South Korea for humanitarian reasons. Or maybe just because he's "weak" in the tough guy performative way that GOP goons think of power. 

The farrago of lies coming from just about every Republican mouthpiece is sickening. I think I saw one "normal" response, from Steve Scalise, that mimics a pre-Trump type response. "We stand with our friends in Israel in condemnation blah blah blah."

The lessons from Trump to his cohorts in the GOP is this:
A) There is no penalty for lying.
B) There is no penalty for being awful and cruel.

I don't know how long it will take to, as Hillary Clinton put it, "deprogram" the GOP, but it won't happen without a long period of them wandering in the wilderness.

UPDATE: I just saw a clip of Ronna McDaniel calling the events in southern Israel "a great opportunity for our candidates". Fuck these people.

Stunning Failure

 For decades, Israel's intelligence service and military were undeniably the most powerful in the Middle East. From being a marginal state beset by enemies, Israel is now incredibly stronger than its neighbors. 

Today, the reputation of the intelligence services was shattered. The ability of Hamas to carry out such a wide ranging terrorist attack without Mossad knowing has already been compared to the intelligence failure of the Yom Kippur War.

The difference between this and the Yom Kippur War is that the IDF isn't really challenged by this action. They retain all their capabilities and those capabilities dwarf whatever Hamas has. This was textbook terrorism, but every outrage visited upon Israelis will be repaid twice against Palestinians. As awful as today was, the coming weeks promise to be worse. 

What was Hamas thinking? Generally, terrorist attack like these are done to provoke a response. The response from Israel is likely to be massive and Palestinians in Gaza are going to suffer for it. Unless they have some super secret plan, the IDF is going to roll over them like a steamroller.

Of course, we have to examine the political implications of this action. I saw a poll that had Trump leading Biden on foreign policy which is absurd, but this likely won't help, if it drags on. Trump and the GOP are staunch allies of Netanyahu and Likud, and they are going to hit Biden on the cash payments to Iran whether or not there is a link between Hamas and Iran or not.

More immediately, the future of the Netanyahu government is at question. Some opposition leaders have called for a unity government to prosecute what Netanyahu is calling a "war". At some point, however, the accountability moment might occur. I say "might" because we saw what happened after 9/11. The Bush Administration oversaw the greatest intelligence failure since at least Pearl Harbor...and his approval ratings shot up. 

The endless "wag the dog" conspiracies are already percolating: that Netanyahu let the attack happen to shore up his government. On the other side, they argue that Netanyahu's desperate clinging to power has created a shadow Mossad made up of hard right ideologues that can't do their job properly. I can't claim to know enough about Israeli politics to speak to that. Hell, I've seen a claim that Putin was behind it to distract the West, but that seems very unlikely.

This is not an existential threat to Israel the way that the Yom Kippur War was, but it might be for Gaza. I could see Netanyahu giving the green light to some pretty horrific reprisals to placate the far right of his coalition. This is going to get rough, and sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza is going to be in short supply.

Trump Isn't Magic

 The latest revelation of Trump's brazen lawlessness and contempt for rules is that he shared vital national security secrets with some rando Australian. The usual take on this is "Why don't the normal rules apply to Trump? Anyone else would be in jail right now for this bullshit."

No, Trump is not magic. He benefits entirely from the latent misogyny that sank Hillary Clinton by just enough votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to become a minority president. This shocking development made all the Republican establishment who couldn't believe that they were saddled with this boorish oaf into true believers. As Marshall has said, "The GOP is a failed state and Trump is its warlord."

Because Trump has the unwavering loyalty of Cult 45 and that terrifies GOP politicians, any attempt to hold him accountable runs into exactly the sort of nonsense we are seeing in the House and among rightist media.

The walls, however, are getting closer. He can't bullshit his way out of every prosecution coming his way.

A Fool And His Money

 I remember telling my students back in 2021 that crypto was a scam and Elon Musk was not actually that smart. I think the crypto prediction proved pretty ironclad. Now, it looks like Musk might finally get some comeuppance. Either his bankers are going to repossess Twitter (and not a moment too soon, he's trashed the place) or the SEC is going to put him through some things.

Maybe that's why he's lurched to the right, despite owning a business that requires the goodwill of left of center customers. If he's a right wing troll, when the SEC comes for him he can yell "witch-hunt!" 

So hopefully his bankers repo Twitter and give it to people who know what the fuck they are doing. For all its many faults it's not been replicated.

Do They Realize Reality?

 This analysis by Josh Marshall gibes with the general reporting: the GOP caucus is so fractured and dysfunctional after McCarthy's ouster that there is no one who can win the Speaker's gavel under terms that makes the Speaker anything but a puppet for the Gaetz-led insurgents.

Of course, the solution is readily apparent: coalitional governance. After several weeks of floundering about with failed votes to elect a Speaker, will there be enough Republican "moderates" (I think you'd want 7-8 to be sure) to elect someone who will run the House as a coalition? Have a few continuing resolutions, pass a compromise budget, aid to Ukraine, etc. I could give a fuck about the Biden impeachment, it's stupid and will just make Republicans look stupid.

Basically are there around 10 Republicans who would be willing to "betray" their chaotic caucus to keep government functioning at the most basic levels?

Think about what that question means for the state of American democracy when one of the two major parties is that big a mess. 

Jon Chait notes that this pattern of Republican cannibalism has its roots in the rise of the Goldwater conservative movement that eventually elevated Reagan to the White House. This interpretation holds that the conservative movement lost its way by ceding the policy ground to the New Deal and later the Great Society. The problem was that the Republican party was not conservative (nihilistic) enough. If they only conservatived harder, they would get the most conservative conservatism that ever conservatived. 

None of this is "conservative" by the way, it's deeply reactionary. The Goldwater and later Gingrich insurgents wanted to roll back large aspects of the post-1933 state. Their issue that people don't actually want that. (Trump at least sorta gets this by not harping on cutting Social Security or Medicare.) 

The insurgents live in this fantasy land where they just need to be "purer" and they will get the magical pony they always wanted. Are there enough Republicans who realize this will never happen? That they have a government to run?

Interesting Take

 This TPM reader makes a case for Democrats propping up McCarthy's Speakership. Like Marshall, I'm not sure I agree with it, because McCarthy had basically shown himself to be a liar when it came to deals he made with Democrats. The argument that it would put Democrats in the driver's seat is an interesting one, though. If Democrats had saved McCarthy, would that mean McCarthy would do things like pass a reasonable budget or fund Ukrainian aid? I suppose it's possible, but that seems very unlikely. 

It is reasonable to wonder what comes next, though. Conceivably a new Speaker (who isn't a Freedumb Caucus troll) could be elevated by Democratic votes and attain the same result. McCarthy was just the worst reed for anyone to lean on - a weak man void of principles.

The general idea that Democrats are responsible for cleaning up the GOP's mess is absurd though. If this causes some pain, perhaps that it the lesson that Americans need about a year from yet another Most Important Election Ever.

Martin Longman makes the case against this argument. Mainly, his argument is that there IS a functional and functioning majority in the House, but it consists of mostly Democrats. McCarthy seemed to think he could shit on that and survive. He could not. Is there a Speaker who could win 5-10 Republican votes? I think a Speaker Liz Cheney would be freaking hilarious.

All of this brings to mind the superiority in so many ways of a parliamentary system. If we were in a parliamentary system, we would be having elections to fix this bullshit. We don't so we aren't. We are stuck with this clown car for another 15 months.

Dying Of Poverty

 The WaPo has a fascinating dive into the impact of chronic disease on American health. Interestingly, over the past 40 years life expectancy has increased in urban America and collapsed in rural America. I have to wonder if Trump's bullshit "American carnage" is based on the fact that rural communities are seeing early deaths and dysfunction and project that on American cities. Given the population disparity there are always more "stories" from cities, but the statistics tell us that living in small town America is now more dangerous than living in a city. Not because of violence, but because of obesity, heart disease and cancer. In fact, the Post story posits that these deaths outstrip the "deaths of despair" that have been written about at great length.

As Paul Campos notes, the very people who came up with the term "deaths of despair" have a new study out showing that an American with a college degree who turned 25 in 2019 could expect to live to be 84; those without a college degree could only expect to live to 75. That number has actually declined since 1992. Declining numbers...not good. Campos notes that college degrees have become a proxy for class, even if income isn't necessarily all that different.

Back to the Post's story, here's a critical quote:

“The big-ticket items are cardiovascular diseases and cancers,” said Arline T. Geronimus, a University of Michigan professor who studies population health equity. “But people always instead go to homicide, opioid addiction, HIV.”

We naturally are drawn to stories of dramatic death like shootings or overdoses. Those are understandably tragic. The slow motion death caused by poor health is just less narratively compelling. (It's worth noting that Campos himself often pushes back on the idea that obesity causes poor health, which I find odd.)

One theme that emerges in the Post piece is that health and medicine aren't the same thing. America does great things with medicine - if you can pay for it - but we struggle with healthy living. Our food is unhealthy, unless you can take the time and effort to make it healthy - something people working double shifts to make ends meet can't do. There's the lingering impact of smoking, which I have to imagine is much higher among those without college degrees. If I'm being honest, seeing someone smoking under 50 automatically lowers my estimation of the person's critical thinking ability. 

The Post story points to policy, not just obesity and cancer:

Instead, experts studying the mortality crisis say any plan to restore American vigor will have to look not merely at the specific things that kill people, but at the causes of the causes of illness and death, including social factors. Poor life expectancy, in this view, is the predictable result of the society we have created and tolerated: one riddled with lethal elements, such as inadequate insurance, minimal preventive care, bad diets and a weak economic safety net.

The Affordable Care Act increased the ability of some to get insurance and made it generally more affordable, but having access to medicine is not the same as being healthy. When I saw my doctor a year or two ago, he noted that my weight might not be ideal, but I've large framed and muscular, and my blood work and vitals were good. He seemed genuinely happy that I was "taking care of myself" in a way that made it clear that this was not typical of his patients. I see him once a year; I see my dentist twice a year; I access physical therapy when I need it. That's having the monetary means to do so with solid insurance, but it's also a mindset about health.

Meanwhile, Red America (rural) thinks vaccines are bad. That's a mindset, too.

There's one obvious solution to this "hidden" mortality: universal health care. That would help a great deal, but that will also need to be combined with things like more primary care doctors and physician assistants to allow people to actually access care. How you get people to stop smoking and super-sizing their meals is another issue. 

At any rate, read the piece. It's why good journalism still matters.

When Your Enemy Is Drowning, Stick a Hose In Their Mouth

 There is an unspoken rule in political coverage in most media outlets: Republicans will come into power and fuck things up and then Democrats will have to clean up their mess. This is true of budget deficits or foreign wars or just basic governance. 

Right now, it looks like Matt Gaetz will find enough votes to possibly, maybe force Kevin McCarthy out of the Speaker's chair. If so, the real drama begins, as there is no real candidate to replace him. As we saw in January, McCarthy doesn't have the support of his entire caucus. It seems almost inevitable that Democratic votes will be necessary to create a new Speaker. This has led many media outlets to suggest that Democrats provide the votes necessary to preserve McCarthy's speakership. 

As Josh Marshall and others have noted, there is no reason for Democrats to believe any deals that McCarthy makes with them absent the lever of the Motion to Vacate. Let the Republicans deal with their own mess.

What's more, the election next year will be fought over the votes of Independents, which I think include a lot more former Republicans than pollsters know about. A constant series of chaotic events in Congress will help deliver the House to Democrats and could help preserve the Senate majority.

Let them burn.

Everyone Hates Matt Gaetz

 If his bid to unseat McCarthy falls apart, it will likely be because he's such an insufferable dickwad.

What The Hell Was THAT?

 The GOP collapse on a Continuing Resolution is pretty damned funny. Basically, they punt this issue further down the road, closer to the holidays and closer to the election. It may have come at the expense of aid to Ukraine, but there are some whispers that there will be a straight up-or-down vote in a defense bill that includes aid to Ukraine later this week. We shall see. 

Regardless, Matt Gaetz is going to file a motion to vacate if he can. More whispers are that Pelosi is urging Democrats not to save McCarthy. Let the dysfunction of the Chaos Caucus play out over a few weeks. Remind everyone that the GOP is currently not a governing party. They are active insurgents against the 21st century.

I've been dismayed at the rank mendacity that has characterized almost everything the GOP says. 

"We have evidence that Joe Biden is incredibly corrupt." No, you don't.

"Trump is the victim of a witch hunt." No, he isn't.

"Nothing bad happened on January 6th." Bullshit.

"We don't really want to deny women the right to choose." No, you do.

What is fascinating is that there are real "no bullshit" moments left in American civic life. You can lie your ass off on Fox News all the live long day, but when it comes time to appear in Court or vote on a bill, the bullshit won't cut it.

Trump is finding that out in court. Repeatedly. The House GOP is finding out that the gun they thought they had loaded at the Biden Administration is actually pointed at them.

In a sane country, Democrats would win 70% of the vote.