Truth and Consequences

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.

If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin who lives in San Juan. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated.

For those of you who missed Friday’s Zoom Chat with Tom Schaller, I recorded it, and you can listen to it above. It was 90 minutes of political geekdom as Tom and I discussed the future of American democracy, the role of women in the 2024 election, and our sense of how things will turn out on Tuesday.

Seismic Selzer

I usually don’t post on Sunday … but we have some major political news.

I’m pretty sure no one saw this one coming …

Kamala Harris now leads Donald Trump in Iowa — a startling reversal for Democrats and Republicans who have all but written off the state’s presidential contest as a certain Trump victory.  

A new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows Vice President Harris leading former President Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters just days before a high-stakes election that appears deadlocked in key battleground states.  

There are a couple of caveats here. This is the Ann Selzer poll. She is the gold standard for Iowa pollsters and is generally considered one of the best pollsters in the country. Here is her recent track record.

Of course, this is one poll, and it could easily be an outlier. An Emerson poll from earlier on Sunday had Trump up by 10 points, but again, see above — Selzer’s track record in Iowa couldn’t be more solid.

But here’s the bottom line: this is an earth-shattering result.

Keep in mind that Biden lost Iowa by 8 points in 2020. If Harris were down 5 points in the Selzer poll, that would be terrible news for Trump (if he’s doing 3 points worse than he was in 2020, it’s hard to imagine that he’s doing better in Wisconsin, which has similar demographics to Iowa, or even Michigan and Pennsylvania — and he lost all three of those states in 2020).

So, if this poll were off by 6-8 points, it would still be great news for Harris. If we’re even discussing whether Harris is ahead in Iowa, it doesn’t matter what the outcome is in Iowa. She’s likely going to win the election.

So why is Harris doing so well … this part should really concern the Trump campaign.

Independent voters, who had consistently supported Trump in the leadup to this election, now break for Harris. That’s driven by the strength of independent women, who back Harris by a 28-point margin, while independent men support Trump, but by a smaller margin. 

Similarly, senior voters who are 65 and older favor Harris. But senior women support her by a more than 2-to-1 margin, 63% to 28%, while senior men favor her by just 2 percentage points, 47% to 45%.  

Trump is getting absolutely killed by women voters. This has been evident in polling all years. We’re seeing evidence of this in the early voting … and now we have a high-quality poll from a gold-standard pollster that says the same thing.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that if Harris is winning senior women by a 63-28 margin, one should probably assume that a small but significant chunk of those voters are Republican women. That’s another huge problem for Trump because he has such a thin margin for error, and losing any Republican votes will make it far more difficult for him to win.

As I always say with polls, take them with a grain of salt — and don’t overreact to a single poll. But considering Selzer’s record and the extent to which her results dovetail with what we seeing with women voters elsewhere in the country, this feels like a potential omen for where this election is headed.

I’m not making a prediction because after getting 2016 completely wrong, I’ve sworn off making declarative statements about the election outcome. But as for my hunch that Harris is going to win, that’s feeling pretty good right about now.

Are Pollsters Pro-Trump?

Remember a couple of weeks ago when I speculated that pollsters were perhaps overcompensating for underestimating Trump’s support in 2016 and 2020 … ahem (from Nate Cohn in the New York Times).

It’s hard to overstate how traumatic the 2016 and 2020 elections were for many pollsters. For some, another underestimate of Mr. Trump could be a major threat to their business and their livelihood. For the rest, their status and reputations are on the line. If they underestimate Mr. Trump a third straight time, how can their polls be trusted again? It is much safer, whether in terms of literal self-interest or purely psychologically, to find a close race than to gamble on a clear Harris victory.

At the same time, the 2016 and 2020 polling misfires shattered many pollsters’ confidence in their own methods and data. When their results come in very blue, they don’t believe it. And frankly, I share that same feeling: If our final Pennsylvania poll comes in at Harris +7, why would I believe it? As a result, pollsters are more willing to take steps to produce more Republican-leaning results. (We don’t take such steps.)

Seems like kind of a big deal.

Musical Interlude

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to subscribe, you can sign up here.

In case you missed my conversation with Dahlia Scheindlin on the latest doings in Israeli politics, you can check it out above. Besides being one of my oldest friends, Dahlia is one of the most thoughtful observers of Israeli politics. There were tons of fascinating insights from her in this conversation. So please give it a listen.

Hypocrite, Hypocrite, Two-Faced, Two-Faced

This makes me crazy.

In Florida, Republicans passed the Stop WOKE Act, which limits how teachers can educate students about racism. As DeSantis argued when this legislation was introduced in 2021, “In Florida, we are taking a stand against the state-sanctioned racism that is critical race theory. We won’t allow Florida tax dollars to be spent teaching kids to hate our country or to hate each other.” DeSantis has said he doesn’t want “woke ideology” taught in schools.

So we’re clear: what Florida did, by passing this law and now by blocking the teaching of an AP class on African-American history, is (to paraphrase DeSantis) IMPOSING AN IDEOLOGY AND ADVANCING A POLITICAL AGENDA.

If you listen to the clip above, you’ll see that DeSantis specifically complains about “Queer Theory” being taught in the aforementioned class and argues this is inappropriate. “Now who would say that an important part of Black history is queer theory?” DeSantis said at a news conference this week. “That is somebody pushing an agenda on our kids.”

From what I understand, DeSantis is not a historian and has no rigorous training in African-American history. He’s a politician, and the position he’s taking is reflective of his political ideology and agenda. I’m not even taking a position on whose view of history is correct or whether Queer Theory should be taught. Neither I nor DeSantis is in the position to make that call. The issue here is that Florida is limiting what can be taught in schools based on a political judgment and not any recognizable pedagogical standards. With DeSantis’s blessing, the state is imposing a politically-driven and ideological perspective, which is the exact opposite of pursuing truth in the classroom.

Plenty of critics have pointed out that DeSantis is going out of his way to target educational agendas focused on marginalized communities (Black and LGBT Americans) — and that what we’re saying here is DeSantis’s racist intent. That’s a judgment call (and I don’t disagree), but more obviously, he’s acting like a complete hypocrite. It’s enraging that he gets away with making comments such as the one above, and it’s not immediately pointed out that he is doing precisely what he says shouldn’t be happening in Florida schools.

If there is one person politicizing education in Florida — and pushing an ideological agenda — it’s Ron DeSantis.

After You. No, After You

Typically smart argument from the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell.

Republicans have Very Serious budget demands. Unfortunately, they can’t identify what any of those demands are.

They say they want to reduce deficits — but meanwhile have ruled out virtually every path for doing so (cuts to defense, cuts to entitlements, wiping out nondefense discretionary spending, or raising taxes).

This point cannot be made enough. House Republicans are threatening to default on the US debt because they want to cut spending to reduce the deficit … but refuse to identify the actual reductions they think should be made. Prominent Republicans have ruled out significant cuts to defense spending. Rep. Nancy Mace said this weekend that cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security should be off the table (interestingly, Trump said the same thing).

I missed this when McCarthy said it last month, but here are two of his ideas for reducing the deficit, “Eliminate all the money spent on ‘wokeism.’ Eliminate all the money that they’re trying to find different fuels, and they’re worried about the environment to go through.”

Um, ok.

And as I keep pointing out, nothing is stopping Republicans from drafting a budget that takes an ax to the “wokeism” budget and whatever the actual f**k McCarthy is talking about in that second sentence. But they don’t want to do that because it would be politically unpopular. They prefer the Biden Administration go first, which would make sense … if they weren’t holding a loaded gun to the head of the US economy.

So basically, we have an unfolding hostage crisis in which the hostage-takers’ key demand is that the other side tells them what they’re willing to pay.

Republicans: "We're not letting the hostage go until you meet our demands."

Democrats: "What are your demands?"

Republicans: (huddled whispering) "What are you willing to pay?"

Democrats: "That's not how this works."

Republicans: (huddled whispering) "Name your price."

Democrats: “You took the hostage!”

Republicans: (huddled whispering) “We’re going into a tunnel. We’ll call you back.”

Democrats: "Oh FFS"

Part of me appreciates the honesty in Ted Cruz’s recent statement about the debt limit … that Republicans only care about the issue when there’s a Democrat in the White House.

What’s Going On

* I’ve told you once, and I’ll tell you again … always read Tom Edsall on American politics.

* Good piece in Politico on Donald Trump’s overtly racist attacks against former Cabinet secretary Elaine Chao and the silence of Republican officials.

* If you’re seeing recent coverage of the Doomsday Clock, check out my 2018 piece on why it shouldn’t be taken seriously.

* Long-time readers of Truth and Consequences know that I have a weird fixation with the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Baseball Writers Association of America (true story: I once lost a paid subscriber because of a HOF rant). So I was very pleased to see that Scott Rolen was elected to the Hall earlier this week. Based on the stat WAR (Wins Above Replacement), which basically tells us how many wins a player was worth during their career, Rolen is the 10th best 3B in baseball history. While his offensive numbers might not appear Hall-worthy (317 HRs, 2077 hits, .281 batting average, and .364 on-base percentage), Rolen was an 8-time Gold Glove winner and, based on defensive WAR, is the fifth-best defensive 3B in the history of the game. The thing is, the baseball writers usually don’t pay attention to defense (or statistics and/or common sense), which is likely why Andruw Jones, the best defensive centerfielder to ever play the game, only got 58% of the vote this year — and is still, inexplicably, not in the Hall of Fame. Still, credit where credit is due on Rolen.

* Having said that … Alex Rodriguez got a mere 35% of the vote for Hall membership. I don’t like ARod. He will and never should live down “the slap,” but he’s arguably the greatest shortstop in baseball history. But because he failed a drug test late in his career, he likely won’t get in … and a Hall of Fame without him is a joke. (Keep in mind that it’s already a joke for not having Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens enshrined. Excluding ARod makes it more of a joke). Based on WAR, Manny Ramirez is the 8th best left-fielder in baseball history (though it’s all because of his bat. His defensive WAR is -21.). Yet he got 33% of the vote, and likely won’t get into the Hall either because he failed multiple drug tests late in his career. The world deserves Manny’s Cooperstown speech, but I fear we’ll never get it.

* Uber Eats guy goes above and beyond (this picture is not photoshopped).

Musical Interlude

One of my favorite things about this video is how painfully uncool Bruce Springsteen is when he’s not holding a guitar.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to subscribe, you can sign up here.

A quick housekeeping note. Since the beginning of the year, the Truth and Consequences paywall has been temporarily removed. There are two reasons why I’ve done that. First, last week’s Speaker story was a major one, and I wanted to keep readers abreast of what was happening. The second is that as I hit the second anniversary of this newsletter, I wanted to take the opportunity to remind readers of the unique analysis that you get here at Truth and Consequences and convince you to consider becoming a paid subscriber (or renew your paid subscription).

These days I wear lots of different hats — columnist at MSNBC and the Daily Beast and a fellowship at Tufts University. But the kind of writing I do here is different. It’s an opportunity to dig deeper into stories, worry less about the relevant news hook, and offer analysis that is (ideally) rich, nuanced, and unexpected — whether it’s a deep dive into Ron DeSantis’s political appeal (or lack thereof), analyses of the midterm election results or even an ode to my dog! This newsletter provides the kind of freedom for which every writer dreams. But that freedom -- and the content it makes possible -- depends on your financial support.

So I hope you’ll take this opportunity to sign up as a yearly or monthly subscriber to Truth and Consequences. A paid subscription gives you access to all content on the site, allows you to weigh in on the comment section, and, above all, helps support independent journalism. Thanks!

On Friday, I spoke with Matt Glassman about the Speaker of the House fight, and it was a fantastic discussion. We touched on the congressional procedures, why the Speaker position is so important, the descent of the GOP into nihilism, the surprising unity of the Democratic Party, all the ways that Kevin McCarthy has hamstrung himself, and why he was willing to give away so much to become Speaker. We talked for an hour but could easily have gone on for another two or three. Check it out! You’ll enjoy it.

SPINO … Speaker In Name Only

As I’m sure most of you know, on the 15th ballot early Saturday morning, the House of Representatives chose a new Speaker — and somehow, it was Kevin McCarthy. Most of my thoughts on what this means are in my MSNBC column from last week … namely, this will not end well. 

McCarthy made huge concessions to his opponents, including plum spots for them on the Rules Commission that would basically surrender the policy agenda of the House to the anti-McCarthy contingent. This would be a problem for McCarthy if he cared about policy matters, but he clearly doesn’t. McCarthy wanted the title of Speaker, not the job, and was willing to do whatever it took to reach that goal. Now that he has, the s**t show we saw unfold last week is merely a preview of what’s to come.

First, there will be investigations — lots of them. In one of McCarthy’s more ill-advised concessions, he agreed to support the creation of a subcommittee on the “weaponization of the federal government.” This is code for examining the FBI inquiries of President Trump and others. This committee might even include members who currently fall into the “others” category, like Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, who is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice for his role in trying to steal the 2020 election for Trump. There are separation of power issues that will limit the subcommittee’s reach, but of course, the point is not to garner information but rather to sow doubt about the various probes looking into President Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election, as well as the Mar-a-Lago, classified information investigation.

According to Axios, the new panel will kick things off with an investigation into Big Tech companies — which is yet another water-carrying exercise for Trump. And then there is this, “The subcommittee also will look into Anthony Fauci and his approach to COVID misinformation and disinformation ... the Justice Department’s interaction with local school boards on masking and other COVID policies … and the Department of Homeland Security’s failed effort to create a Disinformation Governance Board.

There are also indications that the House may investigate the House’s own January 6 investigation — for the same purpose as above: to try and discredit its findings.

I would also not be surprised if we have one or more impeachments of Biden Administration officials — whether it’s Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Chris Wray, or even President Biden. The ability to investigate the White House and subpoena documents and witnesses is one thing the House can do without the Democratic-controlled Senate weighing in, so I expect that’s where House Republicans will focus their energy.

A Shutdown Is Coming … And Possibly More

Next, there will be crises. You can write it down now — the government will shut down next Fall.

More ominously, there will be a debt limit showdown that will scare the hell out of financial markets and possibly end up in an actual default. However, for various reasons, I’m not as concerned about that happening as others. Don’t get me wrong: it could occur. But I tend to think that either a) McCarthy will try to avoid it, b) less conservative Republicans will potentially join with Democrats to avert it (via what’s called a discharge petition), or c) Biden will finally do what liberals have been advocating for a decade — minting a trillion coin to stop a default from happening. I wouldn’t say I’m entirely confident in that view, but debt limit crises are strange animals in that, unlike government shutdowns, no one wants a default to happen. Republicans hold the debt limit hostage to wring concessions out of Democrats. And while that strategy was successful in 2011, it’s never worked since, and I’m not convinced this time will be different — especially since the key demand in a debt limit fight is usually to cut spending for social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicaid, which are hugely popular. I feel reasonably confident that the Biden Administration will not negotiate with House Republicans over the debt limit, which will limit the GOP’s ability to play brinkmanship politics.

But when it comes to shutting down the government to try and wring the same concessions out of Biden, I feel entirely confident that will happen and will end the same way all government shutdowns usually end — with no one winning.

Other bad stuff will likely happen, but it’ll be somewhat limited because Democrats control the Senate, and they can largely ignore all the ferkakta legislation that will come out of the House over the next two years. Good stuff, like actual legislation and regular order, will definitely not take place. The people’s house will become more divided, and our politics, in general, will be more divisive, but that was practically a given. And there will be really weird and unexpected crises that none of us will predict. It’s going to be a wild ride — about this much, I feel most confident.

One More Thing …

Last week, a few commentators argued that the fight in the House showed that Trump’s influence in the GOP had waned because he couldn’t rally the insurgents to support McCarthy for Speaker. Yeah, how’d that work out? As McCarthy noted in the clip above, Trump helped him close the deal. And even if that’s not entirely true or is exaggerated, McCarthy felt the need to praise him publicly. Why? BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP REMAINS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL FIGURE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. I put this in all caps because many people have forgotten or perhaps want to believe Trump’s influence has waned. While it’s true that his star has faded, he still enjoys the support of probably 30-40 percent of the party’s rank and file — and he’s still the odds-on favorite to be the GOP nominee in 2024.

Don’t kill the messenger. I don’t like it either. But as the Speaker fight showed, Trump remains the 600-pound gorilla in the room — and he’s not going away.

What’s Going On

* Inflation rates continue to fall.

* The story about an adjunct professor who lost her job because she showed a picture of the prophet Muhammed is incredibly alarming.

* A moving piece on the tragic death of Ethan Saylor and the legacy he left behind.

* Read Patti Davis on why Prince Harry needs to stop talking.

* Good Ed Kilgore piece on why the anti-McCarthy do not speak for the American people.

* In Virginia, a first grader shot his teacher … because America.

Movie Interlude

Today’s newsletter title is from this infamous scene in “The Candidate.”

Today In Bob Dylan

This Dylan song seemed particularly relevant today.

So did this one …

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to subscribe, you can sign up here.

On Friday, I sat down with Ben Burrell to Zoom Chat about all things Bob Dylan, and it was a ton of fun. We discussed why Bob Dylan is a punk rocker at heart, his aversion to fame, our favorite non-pantheon Dylan records, and why Dylan still matters 60 years into his musical career. Check out the conversation above for 59 minutes of Dylan goodness!

Trump’s Party

In a normal political world, one would expect that allegiance to the US Constitution is the baseline requirement for any person who seeks political office in America. So if, for example, a politician … let’s say a former president … calls for the “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” so that he can be president again, there would be widespread consensus, across the political spectrum, that said person had disqualified themselves from ever holding political office.

And yet.

As I’m sure many of you are aware, over the weekend, former President Trump called for the suspension of the Constitution because he still has a sad over losing the 2020 election.

And here is Rep. Dave Joyce of Ohio, on ABC’s “This Week,” not only refusing to condemn Trump’s statement but also clearly stating that he will support whoever is the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 … even if it’s the guy who called for terminating “the rules, regulations, and articles” of the Constitution.

It bears noting that Joyce is not a flame-throwing MAGA Republican. He’s what qualifies as a moderate in the current Republican Party. But his reluctance to condemn Trump has not been the exception; it’s been the rule. As NBC News noted, “As of Sunday morning, Republican leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, as well as the Republican National Committee, had not publicly commented on Trump’s post. NBC News reached out to spokespeople for McConnell, McCarthy, and the RNC for comment Saturday but did not receive any response.” Rep. Mike Turner went a bit further, noting that he “vehemently disagrees” with Trump’s statement but continually dodged questions about “whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination in the 2024 election should make such a statement.”

To be sure, congressional Republicans taking the spineless and cynical route of refusing to publicly criticize Donald Trump’s abhorrent behavior is about as rare as a day that ends in “y.”

But this latest bit of cowardice is telling because it comes after weeks of breathless punditry that suggested Trump’s grip over the Republican Party was fading. “The GOP is ready to move on from Trump,” or so we were told. Yet, in the past two weeks, House Republicans, including their leader, Kevin McCarthy, have resisted entreaties to condemn Trump for a ) having dinner with an anti-Semitic, white supremacist, Holocaust denier … and Kanye West and b) calling for the Constitution to be suspended. Both of these would qualify as the “sure I like ice cream” of benign political statements, yet, for Republicans, they are a bridge too far.

As I noted the other day, much of this has to do with the dynamics of intra-party GOP politics. Of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in January 2021, only two survived the experience. The rest either lost in primaries to MAGA Republicans or didn’t run for reelection. Members of Congress like Joyce and Turner aren’t taking any chances. There’s still a reasonable chance that Trump will end up as the 2024 nominee; and a good chance that he will remain the most influential figure in the Republican Party. There’s no real upside in getting on his wrong side, and clearly, neither is willing to risk it. As long as Republicans believe that Trump can control their political fates, there’s literally nothing he can do that would cause them to abandon him. And that isn’t hyperbole. Refusing to condemn meeting with neo-Nazis or suspending the Constitution is falling off the political enabling tree and hitting every branch on the way down.

They’d rather look the other way than do what’s best for the country. That’s, of course, been true for the past six years — and from a narrow and cynical political perspective (and if you only care about your political ambition and nothing else), it makes sense. One bad midterm result isn’t about to change things.

This Is Not A Post About Kanye West ... It’s About Mental Health

This makes me legitimately angry.

It feels like it shouldn’t be necessary to point this out ... but just because your friend with bipolar disorder (n=1 sample size) doesn’t embrace conspiracy theories about Jews and embrace Hitler, it doesn’t mean that Kanye West’s increasingly bizarre behavior has nothing do with his bipolar disorder (West has been diagnosed with bipolar and has spoken about it publicly) Mental illness does not manifest itself the same way in every person. It would be completely bizarre if it did. Just because Kanye’s particular illness is likely the reason why he’s going around complaining that people are too mean to Nazis and spouting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories does not make his mental illness any less profound — or his need for treatment any more urgent.

And while I can’t say with certainty that mental illness is causing Kanye to act the way he is, the guy went on Alex Jones’s radio show (in of itself a sign of poor mental health), wore a skin-tight black mask for the entire three hours, and, at one point, held up a small orange net that he said was a stand-in for Benjamin Netanyahu. The man’s brain is broken. Period. If West had gone on Jones’s show and said space aliens abducted him and experimented on his body, we’d all say he was nuts. But because his particular manic episode has led him to embrace anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and praise Nazis, lots of people want to act as though West's racism has nothing to do with his apparent mental health issues.

Jesse Singal hits the nail on the head:

What appears to be going on here is people look at someone’s behavior, and then, based on how much it outrages them, they decide whether to attribute it to personal shortcomings (their fault) or mental illness (not their fault). It’s safe to chalk up a desire to play FIFA all night to mental illness, because there’s no major moral taint associated with gaming too much. But anti-Semitism is, on the other hand, very stigmatized — as it should be — so if someone does something anti-Semitic, all that nice, cute, cuddly talk about destigmatizing mental health goes out the window. It’s time for us all to become “personal responsibility” conservatives, to demand that the Kanyes of the world stop blaming others for their problems and pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

If we accept that mental illness is a disease that causes people to act in ways that are, for lack of a better word, not normal, then we should be accepting of mental illness that manifests itself in highly disturbing ways. Picking and choosing when mental health is a factor — and when it’s not — is not how this is supposed to work.

Today In Bob Dylan

Ben and I referenced this song in our chat on Friday … Dylan’s rendition of “Like A Rolling Stone” from his 1966 gig at the Manchester Free Trade Hall (often wrongly identified as the Royal Albert Hall). What makes this set legendary is the heckler who yells out, “Judas.” Dylan retorts, “I don’t believe you. You’re a liar.” Dylan was frequently heckled and booed on his ‘66 tour by fans outraged by his decision to “go electric.” But it was rare for him to respond so directly. He’s rightly pissed to have a biblical epithet thrown his way, and he answers the only way a man as beholden to his artistic integrity as Dylan can — by turning to his band and telling them, “Play it f*****g loud.” Dylan doesn’t sing the lyric; he puts it in a crossbow and fires it at the audience. Mickey Jones's snare drum intro sounds like a cannon blast. It’s legitimately one of the greatest moments in rock ‘n roll history, and this version of “Like A Rolling Stone” is astonishing - eight minutes of greasy, grungy, angry, chaotic, careening, utterly life-affirming rock ’n roll. (I’m pretty sure that the audio below is not from the Manchester show — though it’s a great version of the song. It is, however, a fun video to watch, and you can check out the real thing here).

From the same show, this version of “Just Like Tom Thumb’s Blues” is not as famous but nearly as good. Robbie Robertson’s guitar solo is incandescent.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.

Today’s newsletter is free for all subscribers, but if you’re not a paid subscriber … you know what to do!

I had a great conversation with John Sides about his new book about the 2020 election on Friday’s Zoom Chat, which I’ve posted above. This one is a bit shorter than my usual Zoom Chats, so it should make for easy but satisfying aural consumption. Enjoy!

When National Security Interests Diverge

I’m working on a longer piece about the situation in Ukraine and the growing and, I think, legitimate concern that Vladimir Putin might be contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. I hope to post it tomorrow. But, in the meantime, I’ve been thinking a great deal about the civil wars that broke out in Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s and the analogy to the conflict in Ukraine today.

I’m not going to revisit the entire breadth of the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, but suffice it to say, by 1995, the conflict was at a stalemate. The Bosnian Serbs held a broad swath of territory and encircled key Bosnian Muslim cities. The Croatian Serbs controlled about one-fifth of Croatia’s territory.

In August 1995, the Croatian Army (trained, in large part, with US support) launched a major military attack that routed the Croatian Serbs (and sent hundreds of thousands of ethnic Serbs fleeing for their lives). At the end of August, NATO began a bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb targets in response to an artillery attack on civilians at a marketplace in Sarajevo. Then, in September, a Bosnian Muslim military offensive ended the siege of the city of Bihac and sent the Bosnian Serbs reeling. By the end of the month, the Serbs were in retreat and on the defensive.

American diplomats pressured the Bosnian Muslims to end the military assault (which they believed they were winning) and come to the negotiating table. They did so out of the belief that further military gains would imperil the chances of a long-term diplomatic solution. As Dick Holbrooke noted in his book “To End A War” about the US shuttle diplomacy in the region, “the best time to hit a serve is when the ball is suspended in the air, neither rising for falling. We felt this equilibrium had arrived or was about to, on the battlefield.”

The Bosnians and Croats eventually gave in to US pressure and agreed to a cease-fire, which laid the groundwork for the Dayton Peace Accords. What’s important to understand here is that, ultimately, the US was on the side of the Croats and the Serbs, but Washington's larger goal was a diplomatic end to the conflict, which would forestall the possibility of a US military intervention in the conflict (i.e., boots on the ground), and ensure peace and stability in Europe (a long-term US national security goal).

The Yom Kippur War

The Yom Kippur War in 1973 provides a similar analogy. At the time, the US was a key backer of Israel, while the Soviet Union supported Egypt and Syria. When Egypt attacked Israeli lines on Yom Kippur, their troops were successfully able to cross the Suez Canal, establish a beachhead on the Sinai Peninsula, and bloody Israel’s vaunted military. In subsequent days and weeks, Israel mobilized its reserves and launched an audacious cross-canal attack that encircled the Egyptian Army and left the road to Cairo open to Israeli troops. One might imagine that since the US supported Israel in the conflict, it would have given Tel Aviv the green light to a) destroy the trapped Egyptian Army or even send troops to capture the Egyptian capital. But US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did the exact opposite. He put enormous pressure on Israel to stop its offensive and agree to a cease-fire. Why? Because he understood that an uncertain outcome to the war — in which both sides could realistically claim some modicum of victory — would lay the groundwork for a long-term diplomatic solution. And he was right! Five years later, the two mortal enemies signed a peace agreement. There’s also the fact that the Soviet Union was deeply concerned about the reversal of fortune for its Egyptian ally and was threatening to involve itself directly in the fighting, which could have led to superpower conflict. So Kissinger’s goal in preventing a decisive Israeli victory was two-fold.

I bring up these two examples because they are an essential reminder that the interests of the United States and its allies do not always converge. In Yugoslavia and the Yom Kippur War, the US pushed its allies to limit kinetic operations for fear that a significant military victory would a) imperil a potential diplomatic breakthrough and b) lead to a potentially dangerous escalation. As a result, the US applied pressure on its allies to get the military outcome Washington preferred. In both of these examples, America’s long-term national security interests crucially diverged from its allies.

More Of The Same In Ukraine?

We see a similar unfolding in Ukraine today. Quite clearly, Kyiv wants to push Russian troops off every inch of Ukrainian soil (and rightfully so). The US nominally supports that goal as well — but only up to a point. If Ukraine seizes back territory and routs the Russian military, it could lead Putin to significantly escalate the conflict, including the potential use of nuclear weapons. This would be a bad outcome for the United States … and even more so for Ukraine. But even putting aside the nuclear bogeyman, there is a clear US interest in this war ending sooner rather than later. Beyond the potential for escalation, a prolonged conflict creates significant costs for the United States and Europe. The US is currently spending tens of billions of dollars to support Ukraine and is slowly depleting its military stockpiles.

European countries are bearing the greatest economic brunt in the form of significantly higher gas and oil prices — which will have a more deleterious impact once winter arrives. The sooner the conflict ends, the better, even if Ukraine doesn’t satisfy all of its goals. The US only cares so much about Ukraine winning back all of the lands that Russia has seized up to this point. If there is, for example, a diplomatic solution to the war that ends the fighting but only restores 80 percent of Ukrainian territory, that’s an acceptable outcome for the United States and its European allies. Kyiv will likely not feel the same.

To be clear, this isn’t just a question of the US simply disregarding Ukrainian concerns and interests. The US can also help Kyiv better understand its strategic situation. For example, if American diplomats have reason to believe that European support for Kyiv will waver or a GOP takeover of Congress in November will lead to an end to arms shipments, then the US would be doing Ukraine a favor in making that clear to their ally. Washington might, in fact, have a better sense of what’s in Ukraine’s long-term interest than Kyiv does.

Now to be clear, we’re likely not yet at the point where Washington needs to have a road to Damascus conversation with Kyiv. Ukraine has made significant gains but is not necessarily close to defeating the Russian military. There’s no evidence that Putin is imminently preparing to use tactical nuclear weapons and American intelligence officials appear to believe that the possibility is still very low.

But that day could come. If the Ukrainians are on the cusp of routing Russian forces or recapturing territory, like Crimea, that represents a red line for Moscow, then the US may need to pressure Kyiv to stop its military offensive.

Moreover, if there are indications that Putin is receptive to a diplomatic solution or, conversely, is inching closer to the use of nuclear weapons, then the US has a responsibility to step in and deliver some tough love to its ally in Kyiv. Is the US truly helping Kyiv if it continues to support a military offensive that could lead to the potential use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine? Being a good ally to Ukraine also means telling Kyiv when it risks pushing too far and in a way that could backfire.

This is a difficult situation for US officials and one that involves a balancing of key interests. Aside from supporting Ukraine’s defense of its territory, the United States has a stake in seeing Russia, a key geopolitical rival, fundamentally weakened. The worse Russia does on the battlefield, the better it is for America. But, again, there are limits. The US is a hegemonic power with a strong preference for peace and stability. A weakened Russia is good. A chaotic, unpredictable Russia, habitually threatening its neighbors, causing trouble, and permanently outside the family of nations, is less good. A Russia humiliated on the battlefield and unable to walk away from the war without a minimal ability to claim victory is probably good for the region or the world and, thus, not in America’s long-term national security interest.

There’s, of course, only so much that the US can do to ensure that Russia remains relatively stable. Still, to the extent it can engineer a solution to the conflict that ends the fighting, satisfies Ukraine’s territorial and political interests, keeps the NATO alliance together, and punishes but doesn’t necessarily humiliate Russia is probably the ideal outcome.

Before you tell me that the United States can’t ever do business with someone like Vladimir Putin, I’ll quickly remind you that a critical interlocutor for the Dayton Peace Accords was Slobodan Milosevic, who ended up in The Hague (the Croatian leader Franjo Tudjman was no beauty either).

And to be clear, I’m not calling for the US to sell out Kyiv or pressure them as long as the situation on the battlefield remains fluid. On the contrary, the US should continue to support Kyiv, insofar as the two countries’ interests converge. We’re still, for the most part, at that point today. But it’s important to remember that Ukraine and America’s interests are ultimately not the same — and neither necessarily is our preferred outcome to the war. At some point, our interests will likely diverge. If that happens, the US may need to do what it’s largely avoided since the war began (but has done with countless allies for decades): pressuring Ukraine into concessions that Kyiv doesn’t want to make.

What’s Going On

* The Supreme Court is likely on the verge of killing the Voting Rights Act. So if you thought the Court’s last term was bad, you likely ain’t seen nothing.

* Audiophiles are super weird.

* This off-the-record interview President Obama had with journalists days before Donald Trump took office is fascinating and incredibly prescient.

* More bad news for Doug Mastriano.

* Nate Cohn thinks it’s time to take the Democrats’ chances of winning the House seriously.

* Great piece by Mike Grunwald on Florida’s climate delusion.

Musical Interlude

There’s a very specific reason I’m posting this song today. Unfortunately, it’s just a bit much for me to explain why. Still, it’s a great tune.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.

If you missed my Zoom chat on Friday with Shannon Watts, I’ve uploaded it above — and I’m making it available to all subscribers. We all need constructive ideas on how to deal with gun violence in America, and Shannon brings the goods. This was a great conversation with someone who has dedicated herself to saving American lives from guns. Please give it a listen — and support Moms Demand Action.

One topic we touched on was whether this time is different. That means is this the mass shooting that will finally lead to legislative action. If you asked me to make a prediction, I would say, “no, nothing will change.” Sorry to be so cynical, but I’ve been writing about this issue too long ever to believe that anything will change.

But, having said that, if this time is different, here’s why it might be the case.

People are Angry

I mentioned this in my post last week, but the one thing that has struck me more than anything else about the response to Uvalde is that “the powerlessness to stop these tragedies isn’t leading to apathy; it’s leading to mind-numbing fury.”

People I’ve spoken to, some of whom are largely apathetic about politics, have exploded in anger when talking about Uvalde. The first emotion is not to sympathize with the victims' parents (though that always happens). Instead, it’s a fury that these shootings keep happening — and it’s being directed at our nation’s leaders for not doing anything to stop them.

After Newtown, the overwhelming response was one of sadness and shock. Ten years ago, mass murder in the nation’s school was still somewhat unusual. After all, it had been 13 years since Columbine. Now school shootings are practically routine. That they are still happening a decade after the massacre of more than 20 first graders — and again in an elementary school — is, I believe, partly responsible for fueling the current anger.

The other crucial part of this is the botched response by the Uvalde police, which it now seems may have led to a greater loss of life. But keep in mind, stories about how poorly the police handled this active shooter situation trickled out after a few days. Yet, the national anger over this shooting was there immediately.

There’s something else here, too. I haven’t been able to get this tweet by John Harwood out of my head:

The GOP’s arguments about mental health, good guys with guns, more religious faith leads to less gun violence, and complaints that gun safety laws don’t work, so why bother, are meant to distract public attention away from guns as the cause of gun violence. They are not real arguments. They are, as Harwood points out, empty talking points. Rarely has that felt more true than in this particular incident. The killer literally waited until he turned 18 to purchase an AR-15. Why? Because he was too young to buy one before then. There’s a pretty good example of gun laws keeping firearms out of the hands of “bad guys” … until they didn’t. Raise the age limit to 21 for purchasing a long gun and maybe Uvalde, and, before that, Buffalo (where the shooter was also 18) never happens.

I tend to think that the constant reputation of these fallacious talking points only reinforces that anger over Uvalde. To tell Americans that this latest incident is a result of a national mental health crisis when we are the only country in the world with mass shootings (and certainly not the only country to have citizens who suffer from mental illness) is the political equivalent of urinating on my leg and telling me it’s raining. So too is the argument that we need to arm teachers and turn schools into reinforced garrisons, especially when we now find out that the police in Uvalde waited 48 minutes to enter the classroom where the shooter had barricaded himself. For the small subset of Americans who love guns more than they do people, such rhetorical sleights of hand might work. But for the rest of us, not so much.

People Are Angry … So What?

Of course, just because people are angry, doesn’t mean that Congress will finally pass gun control legislation. Here’s one scenario in which things could turn out differently.

If you accept my argument that people are furious and that a good portion of that anger (though not all of it) is being directed at the GOP, this has the potential to be a political problem. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t think that to be the case, but we may only be weeks away from the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, which would mean that Republicans would be entering the midterms with two issues going against them … and likely with more upscale, suburban, female voters. Would that be enough to cost the GOP the House and possibly the Senate? Probably not.

But as this classic scene from the movie “Casino” reminds us … is that really a risk worth taking? (warning: violent content)

If you’re Mitch McConnell, one could imagine making the calculation that in a highly favorable political environment, in which Republicans are heavily favored to pick up seats in Congress, it’s best to take politically toxic issues off the table. Abortion isn’t going anywhere. Republicans are going to have to bite the bullet on that one. But when it comes to guns, McConnell could easily let off some steam by allowing 10 Republicans to cross the aisle and break the filibuster on gun control legislation. For some of them, it will be in their political interest to be on the same side as public opinion. For the other 40 Republicans, they can be on the side of the mouth-breathing gun nuts that represent the GOP base. The cynical will argue that McConnell would never do this … except he did last year when a handful of Republicans backed a Democratic effort to end the filibuster on infrastructure legislation and eventually pass the bill.

Passing anything on gun control, would take heat off of Republicans in Congress. They can say, “look, we’re willing to work with Democrats on critical legislation. Now put us in charge.”

Right on cue, Ron Brownstein has a new piece which some interesting data on how abortion and guns could disrupt the the 2022 election — and in particular give Democrats a leg up in suburban America:

Attitudes about guns and abortion may represent Democrats' best chance in these places. Public polling shows that large majorities of college-educated voters side with Democratic views on both issues. Nearly 70% of college-educated adults, for instance, said they opposed overturning Roe v. Wade in a nationwide CNN poll conducted by SSRS in May. Among college-educated adults, nearly 9 in 10 supported universal background checks for gun purchases, and more than 7 in 10 backed a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in a nationwide Pew Research Center poll last year, according to detailed results provided to CNN by Pew. Nearly 9 in 10 college graduates also opposed a policy proliferating in Republican-controlled states: allowing people to carry concealed weapons without permits in public places.

State polls underline that message. In California, a state with multiple competitive US House races, 69% of college-educated adults said they were more likely to vote for a candidate who supported maintaining Roe, compared with just 12% who said they wanted a candidate committed to overturning it, according to a recent Public Policy Institute of California survey. Even in Texas, University of Texas/Texas Tribune polls have found that nearly 6 in 10 residents with college degrees oppose both the complete ban on abortion that will snap into effect there this summer if the Supreme Court overturns Roe and the 2021 state law allowing permitless carry of firearms.

If you’re Mitch McConnell and the congressional Republican leadership you want this election to be about inflation, the economy, and an unpopular incumbent president. If abortion and guns rise to the top of the 2022 campaign agenda it doesn’t mean Republicans lose, but it makes what should be a political slam dunk a tad more contested. Clearing the deck on guns and taking that issue off the table for Democrats gives Republicans a better opportunity in November.

Now I want to be clear that I’m not making a prediction. My general assumption is that most Republicans will oppose any gun control measure in Congress because for most of them it’s in their political interest to do so. But, if this time ends up being different, it’s because Republicans will conclude that allowing to Democrats to pass something on guns is a better political path forward heading into midterm elections than obstruction.

What’s Going On

* Smart piece by Paul Krugman on the GOP war on civil virtue.

* Fascinating article on the legacy of lynching in America.

* Joe Biden is not happy about his ever worsening political predicament.

* The leading GOP candidate for governor in Michigan was on the grounds of the Capitol on January 6.

* There was a mass shooting in Washington DC last month that could have resulted in massive casualties … and it received almost no major media attention.

* Mother Jones’s Clara Jeffrey argues that the mass shooter in Uvalde did not act alone. He received plenty of help from Republicans.

Musical Interlude

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.

Take advantage now of a 20 percent discount, celebrating the first anniversary of Truth and Consequences.

It’s my usual practice to send the audio from Zoom Chat episodes only to subscribers, but I’m making an exception for Friday’s conversation with Samuel Charap on the situation in Ukraine. This was a great discussion and one that, unfortunately, didn’t leave me with the best feeling about where things are headed. As Sam pointed out, things are likely to get much more violent in Ukraine, particularly now that Russian Vladimir Putin has his back to the wall. When things are going badly, Putin's inclination is not to fold his hand but instead go all-in. So one can, unfortunately, expect to see Russia adopt even more aggressive tactics than it has up to this point.

Sam and I also discussed the increasing challenge in seeing how all this ends. There’s no obvious settlement between the two, especially with the Russians seeking to decapitate the Ukrainian leadership and Kyiv demanding that Russian troops leave its soil. These are irreconcilable positions, and it’s hard to see where things go from here in a way that ends the conflict.

So please give it a listen and apologies in advance for some audio issues we had during the discussion.

The People’s War

There was one story that Sam and I were unable to touch on that deserves further amplification. On Saturday, Visa and Mastercard announced they are suspending operations in Russia. The two companies account for close to 75 percent of all payment transactions in Russia, so this kind of move could have a real impact. The two credit card companies are following the lead of dozens of Western companies that have pulled out of Russia in the last week. Earlier this week, for example, the oil company Shell followed the path of BP and pulled out of its Russian joint ventures. BP’s decision to abandon its stake with the Russian oil giant Rosneft could cost the company more than $25 billion. Make no mistake; these companies are taking a significant financial hit because public opinion demands it.

It’s the same reason Visa and Mastercard are suspending operations. Right now, the reputational hit of being associated, in any way, with Russia is too great for most companies to weather — and it’s even more true with publicly traded companies. If BP, Shell, Visa, or Mastercard continued to do business with Russia, they’d likely be hit with consumer boycotts and an avalanche of social media attacks. So the best move — even with the potential loss of billions of dollars — was to walk away.

This represents one of the fascinating aspects of the war: public opinion is having a disproportionate impact on the response to the invasion — not just in the actions of governments but of corporations and non-governmental actors. It’s yet one more reminder that when it comes to violating global norms about cross-border aggression, particularly in the age of social media and where every person with a cell phone is a reporter, the juice simply isn’t worth the squeeze.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up here.

Today, I’m excited to announce a new feature for Truth and Consequences. You can now listen to my articles in addition to reading them! In each segment, there will be a link to an audio recording of just that article. In addition, if you want to listen to the entire newsletter in one sitting you can click on the play button above. So thanks for reading and/or listening to Truth and Consequences!

Be An Ally

(Click here to listen to this piece)

Today I have a column in the Daily Beast that looks at the hostage situation that unfolded in a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, this weekend.

These kinds of anti-Semitic incidents have become depressingly routine in American society over the past several years. Despite making up 2 percent of the US population, Jews are the victims in more than half of all hate crimes. Jews now routinely report that they have experienced antisemitism in the past year and since the mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogues in Pittsburgh in 2018, Jewish places of worship have become like armed garrisons.

After the initial reports trickled out of Texas, many assumed that this was yet another incident of white supremacist violence against American Jews, similar to the Tree of Life massacre. But, in this case, the perpetrator was a British Muslim. It’s an unfortunate reminder that Anti-Jewish hatred is not only the oldest prejudice; it’s also one that is bipartisan and multicultural.

Like many anti-Semites, the hostage-taker in Texas believed that Jews have disproportionate influence power, and so he thought that taking hostages in a synagogue in Texas would ensure that his demands would be met.

It is an idea that is widely held across the political spectrum, from those who highlight the allegedly out-sized power of prominent philanthropists like George Soros to those who see financial suasion as the explanation for American support for Israel. Quite often, non-Jews use anti-Jewish tropes or speak in the language of antisemitism, not even understanding the prejudicial nature of their words. That’s why it’s so important to listen to Jews when they talk about the sometimes subtle nature of antisemitism—and the scars it leaves behind—just as we must listen to any minority community talk about prejudice.

When I write on antisemitism in the United States, I tend to be much tougher on progressives than conservatives — and while I don’t delve into that issue much in the Daily Beast below — it’s a critically important point.

American Jews don’t exactly have the highest expectations for Republicans and conservatives, in general. More often than not, Jews are used as a tool by Republicans, who pledge their fealty to fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel, all the while looking the other way — or winking and nodding — at anti-Jewish animus among their supporters. A political party that uses George Soros as a political foil — or invokes the Holocaust to decry vaccine mandates — is not a party that has the best interests of Jews at heart.

It’s also why more than 70 percent of American Jews vote Democratic. Since Jews have long allied with the left, our expectations are higher. Without the support of the political left and the Democratic Party, Jews are a minority community without true political and cultural allies.

It’s why the rise of UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was so upsetting for British Jews. Labour had long been the political home of British Jewry, and the potential takeover of the party by an individual who was an anti-Semite was perceived as an existential threat. The same is here in the United States. Any slippage in the fight against antisemitism is a bad sign for American Jews. That’s why the lack of attention from progressives to incidents of anti-Semitic violence by Black and Hispanic perpetrators, as well as the failure to condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar when she used anti-Semitic tropes to criticize US support for Israel, is so problematic. It suggests that Jews and antisemitism don’t count for as much in progressives circles — and certainly not in comparison to other forms of discrimination against minority communities.

If one accepts the view that the greatest threat to American Jews is right-wingers and white supremacists (and this is an argument one frequently hears from progressives), then it’s even more incumbent for progressives to be allies to American Jews. Unfortunately, right now that’s not happening. Quite simply, if you condemn high-profile incidents of violence against Jews and ignore antisemitism in more benign forms and from one’s political allies, you’re not a dependable ally. And with the threats to American Jews rising, allies are more important than ever.

I’ve cut and pasted the whole article below so please do check it out!

What’s Going On

(Click here to listen to this piece)

* Democrats thought they had a workaround on Senate Republicans’ filibuster of voting rights legislation by proposing a “talking filibuster,” which would allow for a lengthy debate followed by an up and down vote. But Joe Manchin quickly killed the idea, even though a year ago he expressed support for a “talking filibuster.” I give up understanding what Manchin is doing here other than being the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. The only thing I can assume is that he thinks this helps him win reelection in 2024, but if he’s going to kill every major Democratic priority and ensure that the Senate remains in dysfunctional gridlock, what exactly is the point of serving six more years?

* In related news, David Drucker from the Washington Examiner has a fascinating interview with New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu on why he declined to run for Senate in 2022 against Democrat incumbent Maggie Hassan:

“I was pretty close,” Sununu told the Washington Examiner this month during an interview. “I wasn't ready to make an announcement, but I was like, 'OK, this makes sense. I think I could be a voice nationally.'” Everything changed after the governor consulted with Republican senators about the aspects of serving on Capitol Hill and what to expect for at least the first two years on the job. Sununu did not like what he heard.

“They were all, for the most part, content with the speed at which they weren't doing anything. It was very clear that we just have to hold the line for two years. OK, so I'm just going to be a roadblock for two years. That's not what I do,” Sununu said.

The governor said the message from virtually every GOP senator he chatted with — and he chatted with most of them — was that they plan to do little more with the majority they are fighting to win this November than obstruct President Joe Biden until, “hopefully,” 2024 ushers a Republican into the White House. “It bothered me that they were OK with that,” Sununu said.

More than that, Sununu was “bothered” by Republicans' seeming inability to answer this question: “I said, ‘OK, so if we're going to get stuff done if we win the White House back, why didn't you do it in 2017 and 2018?’” How did the Republicans Sununu spoke with answer his challenge? “Crickets. Yeah, crickets,” the governor said. “They had no answer.”

* Rob Lee makes a compelling argument that a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine has little to do with possible NATO membership and much more to do with Russian calculations that if it fails to keep Ukraine inside Moscow’s orbit now, it won’t get the chance again. I find myself increasingly frustrated with the public debate about Ukraine. On the right, pundits are falling over themselves to declare that the international order will collapse unless the US stands strong in deterring Russian aggression. On the left, there’s an inclination to make everything about the United States and the potential for NATO membership. It seems both sides are missing the fact that Russia, like every country, is making decisions based on its perceived national interests. And in the case of Ukraine, Moscow has decided the downsides of war (and there are many) are worth the risk to keep Ukraine from moving too close to the West. If that’s the case, there is very little the US can do to deter Putin, short of war. It’s important to remember that not everything is always about us.

* Having said that, I agree with Michael Kimmage that it’s time for NATO to close its door to new members.

* Ron DeSantis vs. Donald Trump is the Iran/Iraq war of political conflicts.

Progressive Allies Need to Call Out Everyday Antisemitism

(Click here to listen to the piece)

American Jews were reminded once again last weekend that even in one of the safest countries in the world for Jews, they are never truly safe.

A gun-wielding man of British Muslim descent took four worshipers hostage in a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas. After hours of fruitless negotiations, the hostages fled for their lives and the gunman was subsequently killed by an FBI anti-terrorism unit.

As is often the case when high-profile antisemitic attacks occur, American Jews were bombarded by the now familiar “thoughts and prayers” from political leaders and media figures outraged by the latest manifestation of anti-Jewish hatred.

But such gestures are increasingly falling flat, particularly as more and more American Jews—and Jewish institutions—find themselves fearful and under assault.

Despite accounting for 2 percent of the US population, Jews are the victims in more than half of all hate crimes. One in four Jews say they have experienced antisemitism in the past year. Wearing a yarmulke in public is becoming an increasingly risky endeavor and an open invitation for ridicule or even assault. Synagogues today in America look more like armed garrisons than open and welcoming places of worship.

This is the new reality for American Jews. And if non-Jews want to truly stand with us, they need to do more than mouth empty platitudes.

For example, Republicans were quick to condemn the attack in Texas—and pledge their bona fides in fighting antisemitism—but where was their outrage when just last month former President Donald Trump said Jews used to have “absolute power” over Congress and that American Jews “either don’t like Israel or don’t care about Israel” because they overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama and Joe Biden?

How many of them have spoken out against the routine and obscene use of Nazi atrocities committed against European Jews as an analogy to mask-wearing and vaccine mandates in the fight against COVID-19?

Truth be told, most American Jews don’t have the highest expectations for Republican politicians. The GOP has long used charges of antisemitism as a cudgel for dividing Democrats, all the while looking the other way at anti-Jewish animus in their own ranks.

But it’s the reaction on the left that’s more troubling for Jews, who have long viewed the Democratic Party and progressives as political and cultural allies. Progressives, by and large, are happy to talk about antisemitism when the culprit is a white right-winger. They are far more reticent when anti-Jewish hatred hits closer to home.

As the situation in Colleyville unfolded, some progressive commentators pointed a finger at white supremacists, which is not necessarily surprising. In 2017 neo-Nazis infamously marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, chanting “Jews will not replace us.” In 2018 a deranged gunman stormed the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed 11 worshipers.

But antisemitism is more than just the oldest prejudice—it’s also bipartisan and multicultural.

Deeply liberal New York City is host to the majority of antisemitic assaults in the United States, and they are almost never carried out by white nationalists.

In 2018 and 2019, Orthodox Jews in New York were routinely the victims of antisemitic attacks, including slapping, kicking, sucker punches, death threats, menacing, vandalism, and swastika graffiti. According to the NYPD’s hate crime stats for 2019 and 2020, more than half of those arrested for anti-Jewish hate crimes were persons of color.

In 2019 two members of the extremist Black Israelite sect took over a Kosher supermarket in Jersey City and killed four people, including a local police detective. Weeks later, a machete-wielding Black man stormed a Hannukah celebration in Monsey, New York, killing one person. And then last May, Jews were attacked on the streets of Los Angeles, New York City, and a host of other major American cities by pro-Palestinian demonstrators. In Bal Harbour, Florida, four men surrounded a Jewish family and yelled “Die Jew” at a man in a yarmulke before threatening to rape his wife and daughter.

On college campuses, virulent criticism and demonization of Israel and its supporters is frequently lodged in the language of antisemitism and the ridicule and exclusion of Jewish students.

Media attention—and outcry from liberal commentators—has been far more muted after these incidents. At the very least, there’s been little introspection at the growing prevalence of antisemitism committed by non-white supremacists.

Few recent episodes have highlighted this resounding silence more than the reaction to comments by Rep. Ilhan Omar, who in February 2019 took to Twitter to declare that American support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins”—a long-standing conspiracy theory that claims Jews use their allegedly vast wealth to exercise influence and political power.

Though she half-heartedly apologized, only weeks later she obliquely suggested that American Jews maintain dual loyalty to the United States and Israel. She also argued that her comments are unfairly labeled as antisemitic because she is Muslim.

Many progressives rallied around the embattled congresswoman, all the while telling concerned American Jews that she meant no harm and that attacks against her were motivated by Islamophobia.

This is a recurrent phenomenon in the discourse on antisemitism.

American Jews are perhaps the only minority community in America who are regularly told by progressives that what they view as antisemitism really isn’t antisemitism. As the British comedian and writer David Baddiel notes in his book “Jews Don’t Count”:

“It is a progressive article of faith,” Baddiel notes, “that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except, it seems, when Jews do. Non-Jews, including progressive non-Jews, are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not the utterance about them was in fact racist.”

I was reminded of this odd circumstance in an exchange with the MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan. In the hours after the Colleyville incident he used his nightly newscast to express solidarity with the American Jewish community. “You are not alone. We have your back. And in this moment of fear, hate, and violence, you can count on the rest of us,” Hasan said.

Many Jews were rightly gratified by Hasan’s empathetic words. However, after I pointed out on Twitter that it’s not enough to simply express solidarity with Jews after high-profile incidents, Hasan directed me to an op-ed he’d written several years ago defending then-British Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn had infamously made a host of antisemitic comments. He also associated with and defended virulent Jew-haters. But after British Jews published an open letter decrying Corbyn as an “existential” threat to Jewish life in the U.K., Hasan wrote, “Don’t. Be. Silly.” He added that it was possible to “commit to both defeating antisemitism and electing a Corbyn-led government.”

I don’t write to point fingers at Hasan—who is humane, fiercely honest, and whose heart is clearly in the right place. Rather, I offer up this admonition as a teachable moment.

Allyship means listening to American Jews when they point out antisemitism, not questioning what centuries of experience have taught us about anti-Jewish hatred. Having “our back” only some of the time is not enough.

Allyship also means looking inward at the ways that antisemitism has taken root and flourished in American society.

Indeed, the Texas hostage-taker took hostages in a synagogue because he believed that Jews exercise disproportionate power in the United States, and that by taking Jews captive his demands to free a convicted Islamic terrorist would be met.

It is an idea that is widely held across the political spectrum, from those who highlight the allegedly out-sized power of prominent philanthropists like George Soros to those who see financial suasion as the explanation for American support for Israel. Quite often, non-Jews use anti-Jewish tropes or speak in the language of antisemitism, not even understanding the prejudicial nature of their words. That’s why it’s so important to listen to Jews when they talk about the sometimes subtle nature of antisemitism—and the scars it leaves behind—just as we must listen to any minority community talk about prejudice.

The best possible response to anti-Jewish hatred is not just to speak up in the immediate aftermath of incidents like the one in Colleyville. That’s easy. The hard part is recognizing antisemitism when it occurs in its more benign, but common forms—and forcefully speaking out against it.

Frankly, Jews need to more forcefully demand such attention from their nominal progressive allies. Far too often we accept a few breadcrumbs of support rather than demanding more than just fancy words.

Quite simply, if you can speak out against Jews being held hostage in a synagogue but balk at condemning the routine use of antisemitic tropes by your political and cultural allies, then American Jews should not be in interested in ritualistic affirmations of support.

If you want to be true allies of American Jews, “thoughts and prayers” simply won’t do.

Musical Interlude

Carole King’s version of “You’ve Got Ther Friend” is the best

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

Earlier today, I sat down with Monica Potts to talk about her latest piece in the Atlantic on the challenges in getting people vaccinated in her home state of Arkansas. It was a great discussion that touched on a host of topics, from how difficult it can be for poor people living in rural communities to get vaccinated; why pressure is more effective than persuasion with the vaccine-hesitant; the challenges of being a liberal in red-state America; the myth of personal responsibility; and how political polarization is eroding our very sense of community in America. This was an absolutely fascinating conversation that provided a perspective those of us in blue-state America don’t often hear. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

What’s Going On?

* I loved this story about an unlikely pandemic friendship — a 2-year old and a soon-to-be centenarian.

* Coverage of the latest science on the delta variant has been, to put it mildly, lacking. Let’s be very clear: “Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated.” So COVID-19 is walloping the unvaccinated — not those who have gotten their shot.

Yes, there are more breakthrough vaccinations with Delta. In all, 125,000 of those vaccinated have tested positive for COVID out of “the 164.2 million-plus people fully vaccinated since January.” That is less than .08 percent. Of those who have gotten sick, very few have become seriously ill - because of the vaccine. So this is all very simple: get vaccinated. If you are vaccinated, don’t panic. Take precautions, but remember, it is highly unlikely that you’re going to become seriously ill.

* People who didn’t get vaccinated are regretting their decision.

* Disney and Walmart are requiring employees to get vaccinated. This is excellent news and will likely go a long way toward raising vaccination rates. Tragically, it took so long to get to this point, but I’m a bit stunned at how quickly vaccine mandates took off and have been broadly adopted.

* Bruce Jentleson suggests that we stop inflating the threat from China.

Musical Interlude

Johnny Cash is arguably the greatest musician from the state of Arkansas …

… Al Green is second.

Levon Helm gets the bronze medal.

And let’s give Junior Walker some love too!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe

Today, as a special treat for non-paying subscribers, I’m letting you in on the weekly subscriber thread.

I’ve also posted the audio from my Friday subscriber-only Zoom chat with Tom Schaller. Tom is one of the most thoughtful observers of American politics I know, and this was a fascinating discussion about the impact of polarization and the political direction of both parties.

I’ll be hosting another Zoom chat on Friday (paid subscriber-only), and I’m still thinking about who to invite. If you have suggestions for a topic or person you’d like me to have on, please let me know in the comments. Also, feel free to offer any other suggestions, complaints, compliments, rants, or thoughts. The comment section is open - as is the subscription section!

Another Path?

Last week I wrote about the inevitability of Democrats passing a massive infrastructure bill via the budget reconciliation process. That still seems the most likely outcome of the current congressional negotiations - but I had failed to consider the slim but growing possibility that the final bill will be less than Biden wants but will include the support of several Republican senators.

On Thursday, a bipartisan group of ten senators (5 Democrats and 5 Republicans) announced that they had “reached a bipartisan agreement on a realistic, compromise framework to modernize our nation’s infrastructure and energy technologies.” The statement also said, “this investment would be fully paid for and not include tax increases.” According to various sources, the high end on spending would be $1.2 trillion, which is around $800 billion less than Biden has proposed.

It’s hard to know what to make of this since the group offered no information on what’s in the agreement - and a framework is not exactly a deal. Even some members were pumping the brakes on how much has been achieved. Not surprisingly, it didn’t take long for liberal Democrats to denounce the effort and call, once again, on Senate Democrats to pass Biden’s original bill through reconciliation. But, truth be told, the liberals are playing a weak hand.

As I’ve discussed at some length, Joe Manchin wants to broker a bipartisan deal (seemingly any deal will do, substance be damned), and if he can get 5 Republicans to agree to a spending plan ( a big “if”), he can demand that Democrats pass the bill. What about a GOP filibuster? Manchin, as well as the other 4 Democrats, could insist that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer bring their bipartisan bill to the Senate floor via the budget reconciliation process and threaten to block any effort to push Biden’s larger plan through. (I suppose it’s possible that such a compromise bill could win 10 GOP votes to break a filibuster and pass through regular order, but I seriously doubt that will happen).

Successful negotiations among the group of ten could put Senate liberals and House Democrats in a tough position: support Manchin’s smaller bill or threaten to vote no if Biden’s larger plan isn’t the vehicle for infrastructure spending. Indeed, some liberals are already drawing a line in the sand over the issue of climate change, which is a crucial part of Biden’s proposal and could end up on the cutting room floor if the group of ten is successful.

According to Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, “From my perspective — no climate, no deal. I’m not voting for an infrastructure bill that does not have climate.”

New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich took a similar position:

If the bipartisan group sticks together, Democrats can only afford to lose five votes from more liberal senators. Legislative sledding could be even more difficult in the House, where Democrats have a similarly slim margin and a host of liberal members who might be inclined to kill the group of ten’s compromise legislation.

But if given a choice between passing nothing or passing a pared-down proposal, I strongly suspect that liberal Democrats will back down and take half a loaf. It’s not often you get to pump more than $1 trillion into the economy in infrastructure spending, and, at this point, failure is not an option for Democrats. Moreover, considering the growing signs of discomfort among moderate Democrats about the size of Biden’s proposals - and in particular the plan’s large tax increases - it’s already looking unlikely that the president’s original price tag will be maintained. At this point, liberals are fighting a rearguard action to keep much of Biden’s initial proposal in place. (I do wonder, however, if you give Manchin and Sinema a bipartisan win on infrastructure, would they be more amenable to bending their position on the filibuster concerning voting rights? That would be an interesting deal for some creative Democrats to try and broker with the Filibuster Duo).

One other problem for liberal Democrats is that it is likely that President Biden wants a bipartisan deal above anything else. From a purely political standpoint, a smaller bill with GOP votes is better for him than a larger bill with only Democratic support. It would allow Biden to claim that he has upheld his promise to be an effective Washington dealmaker while at the same time getting a massive infrastructure bill (though, in fairness, the political impact of a bipartisan success is likely minor).

Surely the president doesn’t want a full-scale Democratic revolt. Still, if the group of ten reaches consensus, I suspect Biden will signal his support for their efforts - unless he truly believes liberal Democrats will torpedo it. I suspect, however, that he is willing to call their bluff.

One last caveat: for all the fretting among journalists about the slow pace of negotiations and the growing fractures among Democrats, the longer this process unfolds, it’s more likely that something passes. Eventually, we will reach a point where the embarrassment of failure will be too much for Democrats to consider. Everyone loves an infrastructure bill and getting goodies for one’s home district or state. Moreover, once you stake this much political credibility on a piece of legislation, you need to find a way to get it over the goal line. Just don’t expect everyone to be happy with the final outcome.

What’s Going On?

* Fascinating piece by Ben Smith on the fight at the New Yorker over unionization.

* There are already ominous signs that it’s going to be a very bloody summer in America. As I wrote about recently, the GOP’s effort to make crime an issue didn’t work very well for them in the recent special House election in New Mexico. But that doesn’t mean it won’t work if crime rates continue to rise.

From a political standpoint, Democrats need to pay attention to this issue. Voters - both Democrats and Republicans - take personal safety very seriously and not simply because they are racists. When I was researching my book on 1968, I was struck by how significant the increase in crime rates was in the mid-1960s and the reasonable view of voters that their political leaders had a responsibility to do something about it. This is not to say racism played no role in calls for “law and order,” but narrowly defining it in such terms missed the fact that fears about crime were real and well-founded. Democrats paid a significant price for not taking voter anxieties on this issue seriously enough.

While I remain enormously sympathetic with last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests, the calls for “defunding the police” were ill-advised, bad policy, and created a needless political vulnerability. Many on the left continue to view the police in strictly negative terms, but overall, most Americans positively view them. So the relentless attacks on the police have created a political problem for Democrats. They need to appeal to their core supporters on police reform while also not alienating less liberal voters who view the police as essential to their safety. Democrats will need to figure out how to thread this needle because it certainly seems that crime and violence are not going to stop rising.

* I’m not a lawyer but the Department of Justice secretly subpoenaing the phone records of members of Congress and their families seems like it might be a bad thing.

* Trump-inspired death threats are terrorizing election workers across the country.

* I’m a long-term skeptic and critic of the conventional wisdom in American foreign policy, but this argument by Stephen Wertheim, dismissing the importance of NATO, is simply off-base. NATO is arguably the most successful military alliance in history. It helped to prevent another war in Europe, merged the strategic and political interests of country’s that were formerly enemies, and is today containing and deterring Russian aggression. Moreover, from a US standpoint, it ensures stability in one of America’s most important trading partners. Sure, it amounts to Europe outsourcing its security to American taxpayers, but the return on investment is still enormous. I understand that those who urge greater restraint in American foreign and national security policy want to see the US better prioritize its foreign policy goals, but European security is not the place to start.

* According to an analysis by the Washington Post, “Coronavirus infections dropping where people are vaccinated, rising where they are not.” In related news, water is wet.

* Just an FYI, you can’t own the libs if you’re dead.

* I endorse every word of this John Berman rant.

Musical Interlude

I spent most of the weekend listening to my daughter’s favorite songs by artists such as Olivia Rodrigo, Dua Lipa, and Megan Trainor. In related news, I have failed as a father.

So I figured I would go with an old standby - the Grateful Dead show from February 18, 1971, in Port Chester, New York. I love the band’s sound in 1971. It’s the bridge between the primal/psychedelic sound of the late 60s and the birth of the more rock, Americana-focused, singer-songwriter material of the early 1970s.

This show is an all-time classic with five news songs introduced, including the great Jerry Garcia number, “Wharf Rat.” The jam after “Wharf Rat” back into “Dark Star” is legitimately five of the most incredible minutes in the band’s entire history (and no, I’m not exaggerating).

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truthandcons.substack.com/subscribe