Month: April 2023

I respect Timothy Noah, but I don’t think his latest column about Ron DeSantis is very good. The premise is that the Florida governor has committed an epic gaffe that should horribly damage his prospects as a presidential candidate. Noah compares it to George Romney’s statement that U.S. generals “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam war, or Mitt Romney’s statement that 47 percent of the public would vote for Obama because they’re moochers who pay no income tax, or Hillary Clinton’s statement that Trump’s supporters are “a basketful of deplorables.”

To begin, what these famous “misstatements” have in common is that they were extremely easy to understand. Claiming to be brainwashed made the elder Romney sound either mentally unstable or too weak to be president. The younger Romney’s “47 percent” rant demonstrated his elitism and contempt for half the electorate. Clinton’s comments were widely interpreted the same way, even if that was not her intent.

By contrast, what Ron DeSantis said at an April 1 address to the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference was about something almost no one, including me, really understands. It was about a proposal to have the Federal Reserve issue a digital version of the dollar, somewhat like cryptocurrencies but with the full backing of the U.S. Government. To Noah, and many other knowledgeable people, DeSantis’s remarks were the rantings of either a demagogue, a lunatic, or both. Here’s the relevant bit:

One of the things we’re gonna ban in Florida this year is the idea of a Central Bank Digital Currency that they’re trying to do. [Applause.] This is something where they want the Fed to control a digital dollar. And guess what’ll happen? They’re gonna to try and impose an ESG agenda through that. You go and use too much gas, they’re gonna stop it, they’re not going to honor the transaction because you’ve already bought more than what they think. You want to go buy a rifle they’re gonna say no, you have too many of those, you can’t do it.

So it’s ceding the power of our financial freedom to a central bank which does not have our interest at heart. So I think all states need to band together, need to say we’re not doing this Central Bank Digital Currency. We’re gonna let you be in charge of your own finances. What we have seen, whether it is education, whether it’s the bureaucracy, whether it’s corporate America, is there is a left-wing agenda that is being imposed on our society, and in Florida, we just said no. We said we recognize this as a threat across the board and we pledged to fight the woke in the schools, we pledged to fight the woke in the corporations, we pledged to fight the woke in the halls of the legislature. Florida will never, ever surrender to the woke mob because our state is where woke goes to die.

Noah argues this is unhinged because a digital dollar won’t really differ from a physical one in most major respects. For one thing, your bank transactions are already subject to scrutiny and disclosure.

The Fed scheme DeSantis described in his remarks is sheer fantasy. He imagines that the Fed would use CBDCs to steer purchases in the direction of environmental protection, social justice, and corporate governance. There’s nothing in the CBDC plan that would enable the government to do that. Nor could it limit gasoline purchases or prevent anybody from buying a gun. We have entered the realm of John Birch Society–grade nuttery, akin to the Birchers’ claim in the 1950s that water fluoridation was a Communist plot to control American minds.

This may be true, but it’s not immediately obvious why it’s true. We think about our bank savings as cash in digital form, but we can always go and withdraw the paper money if we want. In this respect, the government doesn’t have an iron grip on our savings. But a digital dollar could theoretically be locked or limited in what purchases it can make. And if we couldn’t then withdraw it for paper money, then we’d have lost control of our own wealth and freedom.

I kept waiting for Noah to explain why this couldn’t happen, not because I thought it was realistic but because he needed to address the concern in order to demonstrate why DeSantis is making no sense. Instead, Noah just started throwing around invective, comparing the charge to conspiracies about fluoridation.

I suspect the reason Noah didn’t include this kind of explanation is because it’s a hard explanation to make. And that really is why this isn’t the kind of gaffe that could immediately damage a candidate. If no one knows what he’s talking about or why it is crazy then it’s not going to resonate or somehow define DeSantis.

To explain why a digital dollar should be non-threatening to right-wingers, you’d have to prove that it can be transferable to cash, although that kind of seems to defeat the purpose. Because, if it is not transferable to cash, it’s easy to see how a future Congress could say digital dollars can’t be spent in certain ways and curtail people’s freedom. If it’s not plausible that a future Congress could limit how the digital dollar is used, then that needs to be explained.

That Noah couldn’t or wouldn’t do these things points out the difficulty of doing so, and that’s why expecting DeSantis’s remarks to be disqualifying isn’t just fantasy but also just plain bad analysis.

As a general matter, and entirely aside from my partisan political preferences, I am strongly in favor of ranked choice voting. I’m somewhat less enthusiastic about jungle primaries that lack ranked choice, but they’re still better than the status quo. Let me explain my reasoning a bit.

The norm in America is to have party primaries and then a single general election. In most cases, a simple plurality of the vote is sufficient to win a general election, and that means that voting for third party candidates is most often a lot like punching yourself in the face. You might prefer a candidate who is little further to the left or right than those of the major parties, but if you vote for them it only helps the politician you oppose the most. Green Party candidates hurt Democrats and Libertarian candidates hurt Republicans. So, what this system really does is force people to vote for their second choice.

With ranked choice voting, you can list the major candidates as your second choice, and most likely your vote will wind up counting for them. But a compelling third party candidate has a better chance because the people who support them actually feel free to vote for them. Say the Democrat has a bunch of ethical problems or maybe they’re going senile. The left might welcome a more viable and less compromised option. This system also opens the door for a third party to overtake a major party over time, and that’s almost entirely precluded right now by plurality, winner-take-all elections.

Ranked choice assures both that people have real choices and that the winner actually has majority support. Now, a simple jungle primary without ranked choice voting still somewhat suffers from the problem that you can hurt your own ideological side by voting for a third party, but it still leaves open a chance for third party candidates if they can come in second on the first ballot.

Consider a jungle primary state like California where the Republican Party is extremely weak. We often see two Democrats wind up in the general election, but a third party could seize this opening to run candidates who are more appealing than anything the GOP is likely to offer. If a few of them got elected, they could band together and have real influence in the U.S. House of Representatives, perhaps even deciding who serves as Speaker of the House.

What I can’t support, though, is what Montana Republicans are contemplating.

A Republican-backed bill to create a “jungle primary” that would box-out third party candidates in the next U.S. Senate race in Montana has advanced.

Senate Bill 566 would create a primary system in which the top two candidates who win the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party. Right now, each party has separate primaries and advances a winner.

Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican from Polson, said the bill aims to ensure the most popular candidate wins for a high profile office.

“These are six year terms and to me, if we’re going to send someone to Washington, D.C., they should have the majority support of our voters,” Hertz said.

Hertz called his bill a test run as it includes a sunset date in 2025.

It’s basically wrong to say that this bill will “box-out” third party candidates. They’ll have the opportunity to run in the jungle primary, and if they can come in second place, they will be on the ballot in the general election. It’s more accurate to say that this bill hopes to prevent a Republican from losing in the 2024 general election to incumbent Democratic senator Jon Tester because of too many votes being cast for the Libertarian candidate.

We know this bill is aimed at Tester for two reasons. First, it creates no jungle primary in 2024 for the state’s two federal congressional seats. It literally only applies to the Senate race. Second, it sunsets after 2024. That means it would not apply to Republican Steve Daines’ reelection bid in 2028 unless it is renewed.

Now, if Montana Republicans want to change their federal elections to either ranked choice or include a jungle primary, I support them even if it might cost Tester his seat. But they can’t pick and choose which federal elections this will apply to.

My reasoning here is straightforward. Election laws aimed at giving people cleaner choices are good. Making sure the winner has majority support is good. But election laws aimed at creating a predetermined winner are bad. This goes for gerrymandering districts, and it also goes for selective voter suppression laws. To some degree, as with gerrymandering, neither side can stop until both sides stop, but at least the laws apply statewide to every federal election. When you start passing laws that only apply to a single election, that’s a bridge too far. And it should not be legal.

I am not a lawyer but even I can see that any chance Trump has of beating the rap on the false business charges in Manhattan will rely on a weird potential loophole. The facts are indisputable. He paid off a porn star and tried to cover it up by falsifying how the money exchanged hands. But is this a campaign finance violation? It’s a misdemeanor, but is it a felony?

Trump benefits from the fact that he committed this crime in a federal election, so he might be able to argue that Alvin Bragg has no jurisdiction. Bragg may also struggle to enforce federal tax violations. Trump might also argue that his tax violations (both federal and state) weren’t the point and were really part and parcel of the main crime, not an addendum to it which can be used as booster to turn his misdemeanor into a felony.

In his press conference, Bragg refused to be locked into any one theory of the case, which left many unsatisfied or skeptical that he can make this case work. But I actually love this.

Trump doesn’t have to be back in court to answer these charges for almost eight months, during which he can’t really do shit. His lawyers may succeed in winning pretrial motions but it’s unlikely they’ll get the whole case thrown out. What happened yesterday is that the seal was broken on indicting Trump. That’s really it. Now people will slowly get used to that idea, and they won’t be shocked at all when more indictments arrive from Atlanta (likely at the end of the month) and from the Justice Department (perhaps sometime in late spring or early summer). The people will also be better mentally prepared to see Trump in court to answer civil rape charges beginning in late April. And then there’s New York Attorney General Letitia James’s civil case that has to fit in here somewhere. By the time Bragg’s case goes on trial, people will see Trump as more of a permanent defendant than an ex-president or presidential contender.

I’ll have more to say about what this all means for the country, but I actually am enjoying the ambiguity in Bragg’s case because it just leaves Trump twisting in the wind. The eight-month hiatus before the trial even keeps him from making it an issue, since people will move onto other things and other trials.

He should be on trial for high treason and facing the death penalty for his coup attempt, and he has no right to complain about anything less. In the meantime, let’s just watch him get taken apart limb by limb.

Here is some reporting from The Hill. Try not to spit out your coffee.

Republicans are warning that the unprecedented indictment of former President Trump on multiple charges sets a dangerous precedent that will lower the bar for future political prosecutions while putting the nation on a precarious slippery slope.

Some Republicans are comparing Trump’s indictment over crimes related to the payment of $130,000 to an adult film actress to the House Republican impeachment of then President Bill Clinton in 1998 on charges related to his affair with a White House intern.

So, they’re using the example of their own behavior in l’affaire Lewinsky to warn against overreach and a slippery slope? Does that mean they’re contrite and apologetic about impeaching Bill Clinton over a personal failing? Are they willing to say they were wrong?

Why would they? There’s about a zero percent chance George W. Bush would have become president if the country hadn’t been exhausted and disgusted by all the focus on President Clinton’s personality flaws. The ick factor got all over Al Gore and it cost him, so other than having a subpar midterm election in the 1998 midterms, hounding Clinton without mercy worked out brilliantly for the GOP, if not for the country.

Oh, but you say, they not talking about the merits or the politics of it all. They’re talking about the troubling precedent. After all, didn’t the Democrats respond by impeaching Trump twice? Are you just going to impeach every other president from now on out in perpetuity? Here we are trying to put an ex-president in prison. Where does it end?

They predict that indicting Trump will make future former presidents and other political figures more susceptible to politically motivated prosecutions.

What they mean is they are now motivated to politically prosecute former Democratic presidents, purely as revenge. Stop us before we kill again.

These crocodile tears are hilarious. At some point they’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that nothing about Donald Trump is normal. It could be centuries before we see someone so worthy of criminal prosecution serve in the presidency again. The man lost an election and tried to stay in power by force. Stop saying he sets a precedent for anything other than how a country deals with the aftermath of a coup attempt.

Showing leniency isn’t going to meet the test.

While supposedly anti-Trump organizations like the editorial boards of the Washington Post and New York Times are working overtime to concern-troll the indictment of Donald Trump over the Stormy Daniels matter, a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS  finds that “sixty percent of Americans approve.” In fairness, the New York Times has been publishing skeptical guest columns, but they’re officially onboard with prosecuting the twice-impeached, disgraced ex-president. And I’d like to point out that 60 percent is a high number. In modern times, only four presidents have ever won election with more than 60 percent (Warren Harding in 1920, Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and Richard Nixon in 1972).

Among those who have practical concerns, a primary worry is that going after Trump over a personal matter isn’t the most meritorious path. Why not at least begin with bigger game, like hoarding highly sensitive classified information or trying to carry out a coup? But if you’ve ever gone to concert with multiple acts, you know the headline band always comes last. Once you’ve seen The Rolling Stones are you really going to stick around to watch the Foo Fighters?

And I think we all know that the Stormy Daniels case transcends Trump’s fidelity to his wife. Trump covered up his sexual affairs because he knew if they were revealed in the heat of the 2016 campaign, he would be unlikely to survive it. As it was, he badly lost the popular vote, and he needed some good luck from FBI Director James Comey to pull off an Electoral College miracle. Moreover, his dishonest accounting has already resulted in $1.6 million fine and conviction for the Trump Organization on “17 counts of tax fraud, a scheme to defraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.” Let’s wait until we see what’s in the indictment before we characterize this as a mere personal failing. This is part of a pattern that saw his charitable organization shut down with a $2 million settlement and his fake university shuttered with a $25 million settlement. This isn’t something out of the blue, but more of a constant drip of accountability for his life as a conman.

Frankly, it’s a bit of a myth that he’s hitherto been legally invincible, but it’s true that this is the first time he’s been charged with a crime. It will puncture his Teflon image. Still, in the short term, the charges are giving him a fundraising advantage and a major boost in the polls.

His Republican opponents are taking criticism for their unwillingness to criticize his behavior but they are probably playing this about right. It makes little sense to antagonize Trump’s supporters when even the Washington Post and New York Times are voicing doubts about the strength of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s case. Better to let the cumulative effect of multiple indictments of ever-increasing severity send a message about Trump’s character and electability before coming out strongly against him in his fight against justice.

Don’t forget, too, that Trump will be facing rape charges before anything else. Well, technically it’s a defamation and battery civil suit, but it’s really about whether a jury believes he raped journalist E. Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room in the 1990’s. Trump’s lawyers are reportedly trying to weed out jurors who have used #MeToo or #BelieveWomen hashtags. I can’t imagine that trial will be flattering for the orange shitgibbon.

For now, he can boast that he’s by far the frontrunner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2024, and he’s using this as a heat shield to suggest that Bragg’s case is a political effort to sideline his candidacy. I truly believe he only decided to run again because he believed it would give him this argument to take to jurors, but it probably increased the chances of him being indicted many times over. Back in the 1970’s, Vice-President Spiro Agnew cut a deal to step down and avoid prison time, and if prosecutors knew Trump would go and stay away, they might go easier on him. But he doesn’t abide by any norms, and he therefore can expect no leniency. He will be taken apart piece by piece, as a coup-plotter should be in any country that still has some self-respect.

Sixty percent of the people think it’s appropriate to charge Trump in the Stormy Daniels affair. It’s somewhat crazy to believe that more than 40 percent would vote for him if the election were tomorrow. We’ll see how they feel on the back end of this process, while he’s hopefully cooling his heals in prison.

I want to point everyone to a favorite article of mine: “Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West: Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business.” Penned by Matt Jancer, it appeared in the Smithsonian Magazine in February 2018.

The point is extremely basic. There’s a massive misimpression about how gun laws worked on the frontier in the 19th Century. Everyone was not walking around these newly settled towns with a six-shooter on their hip. Law and order didn’t depend solely on a brave and daring sheriff willing to stand up to any group of rascals he might encounter.

The reality is that with few exceptions these towns had extremely strong gun control laws. Generally speaking, no one was allowed to wear a sidearm. Strangers and visitors were supposed to check their guns either at the local hotel or the sheriff’s office. Residents were supposed to leave their guns at home. This was true even in the most notorious Old West towns like Abilene, Dodge City and Deadwood. The shootout at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Arizona was caused by the Earps’ efforts to enforce the law against packing heat within the city limits.

These laws were not considered unconstitutional. The federal government made no effort to adjudicate them and the town elders would have considered it tyranny if it had. It was far more important that these towns be attractive to new settlers than that everyone have the personal liberty to carry a gun at all times and in all places.

This history matters because the anti-gun control crowd likes to argue that they’re restoring things to the way they used to be. That is not the case.

To be sure, almost every adult and many children had guns in the Old West. They were a vital tool, essential for hunting and self-defense. It would have made no sense to anyone to deny people guns. But it also made no sense to them to let people carry their guns around in town. That just invited trouble and gave the impression of disorder and lawlessness.

Basically, the prerequisite for convincing people that you’d established some civilization on the frontier was that people were not armed.  This ought to be the same prerequisite you use today to judge whether states and localities are safe and civilized.

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the painting of Bent Pyramid. The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 5×7 inch canvas panel.

When last seen the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I have now painted over the upper portion of the canvas. All good so far, especially that hat.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.