Clowns

 The unprecedented gathering of America's top military officers in one place to listen to Fox News Personality Pete Hegseth engendered legitimate fears about either an impending stupid war or some sort of military coup or purge. Aspiring authoritarians - and Hegseth and Trump are cut from that same cloth - need loyalty in the national security apparatus, and the worry was that this would be the first step in creating those conditions.

Didn't quite turn out that way.

As Richardson notes, Trump in particular was lost when speaking to a room full of people who do not respond the way his rally goers or even protestors respond. While Hegseth's vile and stupid remarks are worthy of their own post, the focus really needs to be on Trump. Hegseth is a clown. All those generals and admirals know This Guy. He's the reservist who thinks he's Rambo. Pretty sure Hegseth does not have his Combat Infantry Badge. Generals and Admirals are pretty smart people; most if not all have graduate degrees. Their job is to study actual war, not war movies - which is apparently what Hegseth does.

Trump, however, is the Commander in Chief. Hegseth's primary danger is the sort of incompetence that we saw with the Signal Chat fiasco last spring. Trump's danger is to the constitutional order that every soldier takes an oath to defend. It feels close to inevitable that at some point, they will be asked to forswear that oath in favor of one for Trump.

I think yesterday actually worked against that. Trump had prepared remarks that were likely written or molded by Stephen Miller: the typical American Carnage and the need to destroy domestic enemies. In case you need access to Richardson's post and don't have it, let me cut and paste some of Trump's remarks:

“They looked at (Biden) falling downstairs every day. Every day, the guy is falling downstairs. He said, It’s not our President. We can’t have it. I’m very careful. You know, when I walk downstairs for, like, a month, stairs, like these stairs, I’m very—I walk very slowly. Nobody has to set a record. Just try not to fall, because it doesn’t work out well. A few of our presidents have fallen and it became a part of their legacy. We don’t want that. You walk nice and easy. You’re not having—you don’t have to set any record. Be cool. Be cool when you walk down, but don’t—don’t pop down the stairs. So one thing with Obama, I had zero respect for him as a President, but he would bop down those stairs. I’ve never seen it. Da-da, da-da, da-da, bop, bop, bop. He’d go down the stairs. Wouldn’t hold on. I said, It’s great. I don’t want to do it. I guess I could do it. But eventually, bad things are going to happen, and it only takes once. But he did a lousy job as president. A year ago, we were a dead country. We were dead. This country was going to hell.”

What the actual fuck?

The thing is, he looks and sounds like shit, especially since he disappeared for a few days around Labor Day. So, let's say you might be a senior military leader who is torn between his oath to defend the Constitution and the chain of command. Do you really want to bet it all on this idiot who is decaying in front of your eyes? Similar to his rambling weird speech to the United Nations, these aren't rallies; these are very smart, observant people. Forced to stay in their seats for this verbal diarrhea do you really think they came out of that ridiculous, unnecessary confab thinking; "This guy's got it on lockdown"?

As we head into a government shutdown, the whole thing rests on the fragile ego of a demented old fool. Sadly, I think the best hope we have is that he is, in fact, a demented old fool. This is why the cretinous fascists like Miller are rushing to destroy what they can of America. The clock seems to be ticking. 

UPDATE: Tom Nichols makes roughly the same point.

UPDATE 2: This is a telling line from Hegseth: “It all starts with physical fitness and appearance,” Hegseth said. “I don’t want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat units with females who can’t meet the same combat-arms physical standards as men.” Sure, yeah, the sexism. But the focus on superficial appearance is befitting an administration that just wants to look good on Fox rather than do the actual job.

What The Hell Is In Those Files?

 The decision by Closeted Gay Leprechaun Mike Johnson to NOT swear in Adelita Grivalja to the House seat that she just won is just another striking example of the GOP flop sweat over the Epstein Files. Once she is sworn in, the discharge petition will have 218 votes and whatever is in there is SO bad that Johnson won't even swear in a duly elected member.

The New Mutually Assured Destruction

 In the midst of Trump and Hegseth's ridiculous hectoring of America's senior military command, we get this column from Thomas Friedman about how Trump's Gaza peace plan is a great peace plan except for the fact that it's Gaza and the people in charge are awful. Really, "It's a great plan as long as the world were different." He also notes how drones have transformed future warfare. At the bottom of this post is a tweet about how Hegseth's made-for-TV leadership and doing pushup and warrior ethos is all bullshit, when you look at Ukraine who is punching way about their weight with a bunch of middle aged drone pilots and female coders.

As military planners consider the next few decades, they have to consider that disproportionate impact that drones are going to have on future wars. They are cheap - both in dollars and the risk to human life - and they are ubiquitous. For decades, America has ruled the world with the Predator drone - expensive but able to reach around the globe without imperiling American lives. Pretty soon everyone will have that capability.

With the advent of nuclear arsenals, wars between super and great powers became unthinkable. Drones might be the next step in making wars too punishing to contemplate.

Unless you are a dumbass dumbfuck like Donald Trump or Pete Hegseth.

Electricity

 Yglesias makes one of his arguments that I actually agree with: We should focus on building MORE clean energy, not on making LESS hydrocarbon-based energy. Basically, there is a strong degrowth element to a lot of environmental activism. This is fundamentally a moral or ethical choice from people who want to rollback capitalism, consumer consumption and the impact that has on the planet. Yglesias is right that is so politically toxic, it's not even worth considering. Yet that is a big part of climate and environmental activism. 

A great example of this is nuclear power. Since Three Mile Island, environmentalists have advocated for shuttering nuclear power plants. Germany - for some damned reason - did exactly this and became dependent on Russian natural gas. Nuclear power, however, is carbon neutral and can produce a TON of electricity. There is a ceiling on renewables like solar and wind and batteries. Nuclear can punch through that ceiling. 

What's more, Yglesias is also right that we should not be trying to get "enough" energy for 2030. We should be trying to have so much electrical generation power that we can do things like create hydrogen to make cement and steel - two processes that are big carbon polluters but have no feasible way to decarbonize until we become awash in electricity.

Of course, this is one of those columns that makes a lot of us go "Really dude?" Trump has actively been trying to kill even basic renewables. He has a pathological hatred of wind power and doesn't seem to like solar either. A lot of this is that he is trying to actively resurrect the fortunes of coal mine owners and fossil fuel companies. Killing the tax credit for rooftop solar is just terrible policy.

The reality is that we are increasingly electrifying our economy. Add in the massive demands from data centers and AI and we saw electrical costs go from roughly $0.13 a KwH in August of 2020 to $0.19 five years later. That's an almost 50% increase. If you further constrain supply, that price will continue to rise, which is really bad! Unless you're a fossil fuel company, I guess.

And isn't that the point?

Not Friends

 Josh Marshall makes an important point about how the GOP has been acting like thugs but now expect Democrats to "come to the table" as adults. Yes, Democrats are overly reliant on "norms" and worry about how they will look to Very Serious People, and that makes them predisposed to treat this very aberrant moment as just the usual shit.

Trump posted a racist AI video of Jeffries standing next to Schumer that includes Schumer using vulgarities and Jeffries has a sombrero and mustache in a crude caricature of a Mexican. This is supposed to be the GOP talking point that the Dems are shutting down the government to give health care to illegal aliens. (I don't think that's going to work, especially if ACA subsidies DO collapse, which will impact Americans directly.)

If that's where we are - Trump posting juvenile videos of the minority leaders in Congress - then I don't think we have to expect Dems to "come to the table" with a compromise.

The Very Online, by the way, are lambasting Schumer and Jeffries for using the typical language of the minority party. "We hope Republicans do the right thing." "We are hopeful we can find common ground and compromise for the American people." I get that people are hungry for performative combat like we see from Newsom's communications team. When you say "We hope that Republicans do the right thing" you are not expecting that they will. You are making sure that the sundry ignoramuses that make up both the electorate and the media will see your side as wanting to make government work and the other side as petulant toddlers.

Schumer and Jeffries do not have illusions about who Trump is or what the GOP has become. They are, however, trying to win over the mushy middle. That doesn't require them to behave like assholes and trolls. In fact, the more serious and normal they look, the more Trump and his childish minions look like the assholes they are.

Muscle Memory

 There has been some sniping (and by sniping I mean a full scale artillery barrage) directed at Democrats for their shutdown strategy. Because this is arguably the only leverage point that they have until and unless they get back control of one branch of the government, people want them to try and undo all aspects of Trumpism. 

That's not going to happen.

At least it appears that Democratic leadership is prepared to fight this time. The capitulation this spring was dispiriting, but this time people will be complaining about HOW they are fighting, as opposed to WHETHER they are fighting, which...progress, I guess.

The terrain that the Democrats have chosen is the expiring ACA subsidies. Krugman lays out how devastating the expiration of ACA subsidies will be. This graph shows what will happen in Ohio:

That's bad!

Note who gets really screwed: families and people nearing retirement. Now, the people in the exchanges are people who don't get insurance through work - independent shop owners, contractors, farmers, you know...Republicans.

I get my insurance through work, but I can expect the sky rocketing costs to shrink the number of insured people, which will lead back to the dynamic of using people who DO have insurance to help cover the costs of those who don't. 

Meanwhile, the Sundowner In Chief was posting AI slop videos about a QAnon conspiracy about "medbeds." Laser focused, Donny Boy.

There is an argument that Democrats win this war whether or not they lose this battle over keeping the government open. Health care is an issue people trust them on and the reduced salience of that issue has likely helped Republicans peel off Democratic votes. Arguing about insurance is a good way to remind people about the OBBB - which they hate. If Democrats win, they have "exerted dominance" over Trump. If they lose, people will be pissed about health care costs and know that Republicans are to blame.

Fighting this fight is the Democrats relying on muscle memory to get them out of a slump. 

Europe Is Our Only Hope

 There are obviously so many concerns about Trump's assault on American Democracy. This is likely to be a feature of this space for the next three years. However, liberal democracy is not just an American project. We took the lead during and after World War II, but as we see with the emergence of China and rise of Trump, Orban and Erodogan, that progress is not linear nor inevitable. I think in the long run, Americans will not want to live under a dictatorship, but then again, we are pretty stupid.

If there is an entity that can take our mantle of leadership in the fight for liberal democracy globally, it has to be Europe. Krugman does one of his long posts about how the European economy is much stronger than we usually think. The standard measurements of things like GDP per capita don't measure the actual wealth of Europe. What he points out is that Europe has simply made different priorities.

For instance, much of American productivity advantages can be attributed to how many more vacation days Europeans take. That's neither good not bad, but different. Additionally, the US has vaulted ahead in technology, but that technology has also exacerbated wealth inequality. It's not just the Silicon Valley ecosystem of tech millionaires and billionaires, it's the degradation of working class income as it's replaced by automation. America is more "productive" than Europe because we prize that and create technologies that enhance it. Europe tends to focus on things like life expectancy and quality of life. You can't go to Europe and not be impressed with just how...nice it is.

So Europe is not as "rich" as America, but it's still a very wealthy society. However, the very open question is whether Europe is willing to take the steps to replace American global leadership. This would require two big things.

First, they are going to have to integrate more. Krugman touches on this, in that America has innovation ecosystems in places as diverse as Silicon Valley, Austin, Boston and Pittsburgh. Europe doesn't really have centers of innovation - like a biotech hub that serves all of Europe. 

Second, they are going to have to assume some burdens that the US had traditionally borne and that could impact that quality of life balance. Namely, the EU has benefitted from robust (even excessive) US defense spending. The situation in Ukraine and Estonia is a stark reminder that they need to be step it up when it comes to defense spending. Taking nukes off the table, Europe as a whole could crush Russia in a shooting war, but they need to be so strong that Russia won't even risk it, and I think that's an open question.

Especially in the international arena, we are fucked up and broken. Everything that "made America great" has been tarnished, trashed or totaled. It's going to be up to the EU to lead, at least for the rest of the decade. 

Genius Has A Plan, Stupidity Has A Cause

 This quote is so important to understanding Trumpism. Trump is not a bright guy, especially now that he's clearly in cognitive and physical decline. The people who are willing to do his bidding are often not very bright. Kristi Noem and Kash Patel were not picked for their brain power. Trump's handpicked lawyer tapped to indict James Comey is not a prosecutor. I would be surprised if the indictment isn't thrown out on summary judgment. 

The speed with which Trump and the Trumpets implemented Project 2025 has taken people aback. The venom that Trump routinely spits at his enemies is even worse than the first go 'round. The reason that Trump usually loses in the lower courts is that his plans are bad and stupid. The compliant Supreme Court notwithstanding, the Courts require evidence to prove your allegations, and evidence isn't a strong suit of an administration that blames autism on Tylenol and cancer on windmills.

This fundamental unreasoning does not mean that Trumpism isn't lethally dangerous, precisely because it has a cause. This is why Trump's most fervid supporters are usually evangelicals. They are already on the cause of overturning decades of social progress; Trump is just a conduit for that cause. True believers, by definition, are impervious to evidence and logic. That's what makes them true believers.

The Worm, Is It Turning?

 Two threads that basically wonder if we are in a new reality here in Trumpistan. The first is Josh Marshall noting that Democrats are not only now joining the fight, they are joining the fight on terrain that seems favorable to them. 

The second is a compiled Thread from Bluesky about opposing authoritarianism. Basically, it lays out the many hurdles Trump would actually have to clear to end democracy. It was true three weeks ago, but it seems more realistic now. By design, there are so many veto points on the road to autocracy, that Trump would struggle to overcome them in the best of circumstances for him.

One of the points he makes was actually made about, wait for it, Star Wars. Do you know how many Stormtroopers you would need to suppress the galaxy? That number is massive. The author points out that the Nazis original stormtroopers number 400,000 in 1932 and then exploded to 2,000,000 the following year. The entire DHS has 240,000 employees and most of them are office drones. ICE and Border Patrol have a total of 90,000 people. Even if they triple in size, that's a pitiful number in a nation of 340,000,000. 

Trumpism requires assent from everyone. It has largely gotten that from corporate elites - whether in the C-Suite of in a law firm - but there comes a point when popular outrage overwhelms them - see the Kimmel fiasco.

Trump is objectively unpopular. He is also spending his time ranting about UN escalators and Tylenol. Because no one will give him bad news, he's only going to get increasingly out of touch beyond the stark and stark raving made confines of MAGA world.

As I've said before, as a teacher of government I would say, "Be afraid." As a teacher of history I would say "Be patient."

Finding Out

 With all the focus on Charlie Kirk/Jimmy Kimmel/acetomopeneneagin, there is a serious crisis building under the surface of the news. Trump's trade wars have destroyed the international market for American agricultural goods, especially soybeans, and subsidies for the Affordable Care Act are being slashed, which will raise insurance rates for millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, Trump is planning on bailing out Javier Milei's failed policies in Argentina. Why? Because Milei says nice things about Trump, unlike the starving kids in Africa that are dying because Trump killed USAID. 

Which brings us to the Democrats. Right now, we are barreling towards a government shutdown, and the main Democratic demand to keep it open is to re-fund those ACA subsidies. At some point, we can anticipate a bill to bail out American farmers who are getting crushed by Trump's trade wars.

This is the "finding out" phase of Trumpism. Those working class constituencies - farmers and some small independent operators like hair dressers - are about to get crushed. They did, in fact, vote for this, they just weren't paying attention.

What obligation though do Democrats owe these folks? What's more, why should Democrats work to undo the damage Trump is doing before the 2026 midterms? The assumption is always that only Democrats have agency; if the government shutters, it will be their fault. If farmers get crushed and people lose their health insurance because of Trump's policies, then it will somehow be Democrats' fault.

The broad middle of American politics who swung from Trump to Biden and back to Trump does not typically follow politics that closely. They are vibes voters and they roughly "get" that Democrats want government to "do more" and Republicans want government to "do less." If people's economic status declines - as it already is doing - then they will blame the party in power. Biden didn't cause inflation, but Harris likely lose the election because of inflation.

Democrats - to their credit - want to make people's lives better. They want to use the institutions of political power to make things better for the average person. However, if we are to save American democracy, we may have to immiserate people first.

They fucked around in November 2024. They will have to find out by November 2025.

Kimmel

 The monologue was pretty good - emotional, concise, pointed. As Krugman noted, this is a sign that authoritarianism of the type Trump wants to impose on America is brittle and breaking. Democratic backsliding requires that the wannabe dictator is actually popular. It was amazing that even people like Ted Cruz could see the terrible overreach in using threats from the FCC to take Kimmel off the air.

The breakneck speed of Trump's lawless overreach is precisely because they fear an accountability moment. It should be the midterms, but they are working to rig those as best they can. They WAY they are rigging things  - gerrymandering - suggests that they realize the futility of trying to rig the counting or to rely on massive, militarized vote suppression. 

It's a long, long march through Trumpistan. Take some solace and shelter when you can.

That Was Wierd

 Trump's bizarre, rambling, inchoate speech to United Nations was one of the many recent moments where we see Trump slipping deeper into what would appear to be madness. The most cogent and concise response was the shared tweet by United Nations' diplomat: "This man is stark raving mad. Do Americans not see how embarrassing this is?"

Then there was Trump trying to pronounce Acetaminophen. I have a hunch these moments are going to start to add up in public consciousness.

Debate v Argument

 Josh Marshall takes a run at the centrist sanewashing of Charlie Kirk. The Ezra Klein argument that Kirk "did politics the right way." Marshall points out that Kirk was not a "debater" but a "debate me, bro" guy. The latter are provocateurs who use rhetorical pugilism to entertain. Lots of strawman arguing and so forth. Marshall says debate is good, but debate bros are useless.

I'm circling in on something else that I'm refining for a school talk in January.

Debate, actually, is kind of bad. Debate is a sport. There are tactics - of which people like Kirk and Ben Shapiro are good at - that can "win points" and "win" the debate. It's a zero sum exercise - as much of our politics is.

Instead, I think we need to argue more and debate less. Arguing seems angrier, but I don't think that's the way to look at it. When I would get into arguments in college, it was fun! Even arguments with my dad were engaging. The key thing, though, is not see at argument as a win-lose situation. When you argue, you have to defend your position. To the degree that you attack the other person's position, it should be from the perspective of trying to actually understand what they are saying, rather than creating a strawman to disassemble. 

The best arguments that I have had are ones where I come either better understand their position and better understand my own. It's a process of discovery, not a zero-sum contest. 

Losing that has crippled public discourse. 

That ICE Shooting In Chicago

 Unsurprisingly, it seems like an excessive use of force.

The Cover Ups Continue To Baffle Me

 When it comes to the Epstein Files, the evidence to murder Venezuelans in small boats or the video of Tom Homan accepting bribes, I remain puzzled by the Administration's actions. Not that they are refusing to release the evidence; that seems perfectly in character.

What puzzles me is that these fuckers feel free to make every batshit statement that pops into their febrile heads - like Tylenol causes autism - without thinking twice. 

Why not simply fake some Epstein Files? Or manufacture evidence that Al Qaeda is smuggling drugs through Venezuela? Cook up a video of Homan refusing the money? It's not like they are respecting the law in other realms. They lie and fabricate crap all the time. 

Now, at this point, I doubt anyone will believe them it they released a fake Epstein Files that has Epstein lamenting how it was Trump that ratted him out to the Feds. But his base would swallow it whole. Scott Fucking Jennings would crow about it on some stupid fucking panel show on CNN. Part of the media strategy is to flood the zone with bullshit, so why aren't they flooding the zone? It's not because these are people scrupulously following the law.

Either there are some internal guardrails that are actually holding and we don't know about, or there has to be some sort of kill switch mechanism that if Trump released fake evidence, the real evidence would come out. But that doesn't make any sense either. Trump has survived by exploiting the idea of "competing narratives." At this point, everyone assumes there's incredibly damaging information in those files, so why not create a second narrative with fake files? 

Maybe they are just too incompetent, but I don't know. This is a head scratcher for me.