[unable to retrieve full-text content]I am canvassing near Pittsburgh this week with a group of around 30.  The first few days have been relatively uneventful.  The weather has been beautiful.  A few of my co-canvassers reported useful conversations, like one woman who wanted to vote but wasn’t sure who the pro-choice candidate was.  I have had one conversation with […]
The post Pennsylvania canvassing report appeared first on Angry Bear.

I will try to say more about this, but for now:

You might have missed it, but in August, Gorsuch published a book titled Over Ruled, which argues that there are too many laws on the books and that government officials at both the federal and state levels are enforcing them in increasingly unpredictable and unjust ways. The argument is not exactly original, but it takes on a different force when it comes from a sitting Supreme Court justice. Gorsuch went on a monthslong publicity tour to promote the book in front of largely conservative and Republican audiences.

The book, however, is riddled with glaring factual omissions and analytic errors that seriously call into question its reliability and rigor. In its essence, the book is standard

This is a guest post by Charles Euchner, a political scientist and former special projects editor at New America. Euchner is the author of the forthcoming The Rules of Activism: Political and Social Movements and the Fight for Democracy (Polity Press, 2025). He can be reached at awriteratlarge.com.

By Charles Euchner

Why are we waiting?

Three months have passed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, which grants the president “absolute immunity” in all crimes committed in the performance of “official acts.”

If allowed to stand, the Court’s decision makes the president untouchable. Any president can commit crimes with impunity. That means the end of democracy as Madison described it. The president can order the IRS to

Suppose that you wake up tomorrow and discover that a sadistic alien has turned you into an economist. 

You are just getting over your shock at your new predicament (“How will I make friends?  Will anyone ever trust me again?  At least I’m not a lawyer.”) when Kamala Harris, responding to voter concerns about inflation, makes a vague statement in favor of government restrictions on the price of groceries.  It just so happens that you have a regular gig writing columns for a national newspaper.  You think that price controls are generally a bad idea, and the proposal made by Harris seems likely to be either ineffective or harmful.  What should you say in your next newspaper column?

The case for constructive alternatives

Roughly speaking, as an

Here is the campaign speech Harris delivered in Wisconsin.  It’s good:  short, to the point, and upbeat.  She hits on the right issues:  Trump is a criminal, abortion, economic opportunity, Republicans cannot be trusted with Social Security and Medicare, etc.

A patriotic framing that emphasizes that the United States is a great country could help present this bill of particulars in a compelling way.  The basic message would be “Yes, we have our problems.  We can and will address them.  But along the way we must not lose sight of the fact that this is a great country.”

This basic idea can be cashed out in many ways depending on the issue.  For example:

Yes, we have an immigration problem.  We can fix this – in fact, immigration is already

It appears that the democratic nomination contest is wrapped up.  People are voting with their wallets.  Pelosi and Obama at one point appeared to favor some kind of competitive process, but Pelosi has evidently thrown her support behind Harris.  Potential rivals are all standing down.

Ezra Klein is still making the case for an abbreviated nomination contest.  His strongest points are that we will learn something about Harris by having her compete for the nomination, and that the Democrats can get a couple of weeks of all-consuming press coverage focused on how awful Trump is.  Even rivals who have endorsed Harris could participate, perhaps as VP candidates.

I made similar points myself, but I’m not at all sure a mini-primary makes sense now.

Biden has been slightly behind Trump in the polls for months.  Still, until now it was easy enough to discern a plausible path to victory.  Democratic voters disappointed with Biden would gradually return to the fold as the choice between Biden and Trump became clear.  Memories of inflation would fade.  Trump would say outrageous things.  A few decent breaks and Biden could pull it out.

The debate has changed the math.  Biden has been badly hurt by his debate performance.  A vigorous response by the President over the past week might have allayed voter concerns about his fitness for office.  As a result, the fact that he has avoided situations that would require verbal dexterity is strong evidence that he is unable to talk publicly without a

Will Biden drop out?  Should he?  What then?

To run or not to run

So far Biden seems determined to stay in the presidential race.  He and his campaign have worked hard to tamp down any talk that he might step aside. 

Yet there is a reasonable chance he will step aside, especially if his polls drop.  If he stays in and loses, he will have to live with the fact that he lost one of the most consequential elections in American history.  Just as important, he will not become a revered elder stateman.  He will be vilified by Democrats and very, very alone.  There will be no rehabilitation and no second chances.  It will be a deeply painful retirement for an ambitious man long accustomed to public adulation.  And the wrath of Democrats will fall on

The long term effect of the debate may be small, but the race is at best a tie, and I just don’t see how Biden can turn it around.  I’m not saying he should drop out or that his candidacy is doomed.  He still may be the Dems best bet.  Maybe the outcry about his performance will blow over, the case against Trump will become clearer, and wandering Democrats will return to the fold.  But Biden was not making much progress in the run up to the debate.  The case for dropping out certainly got stronger, and the likelihood of a Trump win increased.

I have long been worried about Biden’s lack of a communication strategy.  It has seemed that his team didn’t trust him in front of a microphone, or that he didn’t trust himself. 

I guess they figured that

Imagine that Congress wants to address some social or economic problem by prohibiting certain undesirable acts. 

One approach Congress can take is to specifically describe the undesirable behavior and prohibit it.  This approach sometimes works well – it is the basis of traditional criminal law – but it has two great disadvantages.  First, in many fields – like drug regulation and pollution control – Congress lacks the expertise to identify which acts are undesirable.  Second, the specific-prohibition approach may require Congress to frequently revise statutes in response to changing circumstances.  This is a substantial problem in a complex, rapidly changing society because, as political scientist John Kingdon has astutely observed,

“Congress

From the NYT:

After Hamas led a deadly attack on Israel on Oct. 7, Israeli officials declared a siege of Gaza, and they have severely restricted the entry of humanitarian aid, saying they do not want it to help Hamas. From October to early May, the daily number of aid trucks entering the territory through the two main crossing points in southern Gaza dropped by around 75 percent, according to U.N. data, and reports of hunger and malnourishment have been widespread.

I am not sure what the claim is here.  If the idea is that Hamas will get political credit if people do not starve, this is a totally unacceptable reason to withhold food.  Maybe the worry is that Hamas will gain political leverage by monopolizing the distribution of food aid and

Israel is on a dangerously self-destructive course.  The brutality of the Gaza campaign is antagonizing allies and making it difficult for regional players to continue normalizing relations.  The prospects for a durable peace are dimming at the same time that the policy of military supremacy that provided a modicum of security over the past two decades looks increasingly unsustainable. 

Netanyahu clearly deserves much of the blame for what is happening, but it is important to recognize that he is acting with the support of many, likely most, Israelis. 

Why is this?  What accounts for the Israeli public’s support for a self-destructive policy?  One factor is that Israeli television doesn’t show pictures of dead and wounded Gazans and bombed-out

According to one well-known theory of electoral competition, voters care about policies, and candidates pick policies to maximize their appeal to voters.  This suggests that campaigns will try to appeal to the median voter. 

There is obviously something to this model, and this year, as always, it is a safe bet that each side will, at least to an extent, focus on issues that tend to draw in cross-pressured voters.  The Democrats will focus on abortion, the Republicans on inflation and the war in Gaza, etc. 

Here I want to sketch a different theory of voter choice, one that emphasizes the importance of trust and identity.  The trust model and the median voter model are not mutually exclusive.  Both can be true to some extent, along with other

Probably, and that’s bad for straightforwardly political reasons.  Arrogant, naively moralistic Justices would be much less effective.

Last week the conservative court preserved access to the critical abortion drug mifepristone.  But they relied on a procedural technicality and thus preserved their ability to limit use of the drug after the upcoming election.  Refusing to reach the merits may well have been a savvy political move to limit the risk of a backlash against Republicans in November.  Lithwick and Stern have the gory legal details.

At the same time, the court struck down the ATF rule limiting access to bump stocks.  This decision gave a victory to an intensely motivated pro-gun faction in the Republican coalition on an issue that is

Tyler Cowen links to an article suggesting that Taylor Swift’s upcoming concerts in London may boost inflation and delay an interest rate cut by the Bank of England.

I am not a macroeconomist, but color my skeptical. 

For one thing, a short blip in the demand for hotel rooms in London will likely increase room rates, but this increase really will be temporary – it will reverse as soon as Swift leaves town. 

More significantly, spending on the ERAs tour is a shift in domestic spending from domestically produced goods to imports, and this should actually dampen price pressure (that is, it’s deflationary). Taking money from middle- and upper-class English people and putting it in the pocket of Taylor Swift will reduce spending and price

Apparently the administration is letting Ukraine hit military targets in Russia, though still with some restrictions.  This is way overdue. 

It seems clear that Russia under Putin is an expansionist power.  Only a decisive defeat will prevent brutal ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.  Defeat may also lead Putin to refrain from further aggression against his neighbors, and even get him to accept a vision of Russia as an ordinary European country that stands to prosper by living in peace with its neighbors.  Thinking more broadly, if the administration is so worried that our very cautious support for Ukraine will trigger escalation by Putin, why should Xi think that we and our allies would stand up against an attack or blockade aimed at Taiwan?  And

It’s far from clear the conviction will have much effect on the race.  Most people will not learn much from the conviction.  Small effects could go either way:  marginal Trump voters could turn away from him, stronger partisans could become more mobilized, etc.

I don’t want him thrown in jail, which I guess is unlikely in any event.  With appeals the sentence would not start until after the election, and that would be an incentive for him to remain in power if he wins this year.  If Trump loses he will go to jail on more serious charges.

Taegan Goddard says Democrats should emphasize “that it’s shameful for the Republican party to nominate a convicted felon for the most powerful office in the land.”  I tend to think they should emphasize that

OK, not really.  But this is real (politico, via Political Wire):

The expectations game … Trump also returned to another golden oldie last night: proposing a drug test for his debate opponent. He used this tactic in 2016 against Clinton. The gist is that if his opponent looks good at a debate, it’s only the result of illegal substances.

“I don’t want him coming in like the State of the Union,” Trump said. “He was high as a kite. I said, ‘Is that Joe up there, that beautiful room? And by the end of the evening, he’s like” — Trump made a guttural sound — “He was exhausted, right? No, we’re going to demand a drug test.”

One response would be to agree to the drug test, but to demand in response that Trump bathe before the debate.  Given his

In the summer of 1984, I lived on the ranch of Gerald “Digger” Moravek, just outside Sheridan, Wyoming.  Like many of the ranchers who banded together to establish the Powder River Basin Resource Council, where I was working, Digger was drawn to environmentalism partly for self-interested reasons:  in the early 1970s a coal company was blasting near his land and damaging his house.  But fighting coal companies and limiting the damage from strip mining was not just a personal issue for Digger, it was a moral issue and a life-defining cause.  He sued, helped to launch PRBRC, and I believe that eventually he testified before Congress about the need to regulate strip mining.  (Here is testimony he gave at the 10th anniversary of the Surface Mining Control

Judge Merchan appears to be boxed in.  On the one hand, fining Trump $1,000 for violating the gag order is obviously not going to be effective.  On the other hand, sending Trump to jail would make him a martyr to some, and may not even be effective, since Trump would appeal any order sending him to the hoosegow.  What’s a trial judge to do?

Well, one possibility is to ban Trump from Truth Social (or from social media generally).  Sure, Trump could still threaten jurors and witnesses at his rallies, but my sense is that Truth Social is the main way he gets his message out.  (His rallies this spring have been so boring they don’t get much press coverage.  Don’t take my word for it, listen to one yourself.) 

I’m not sure why this doesn’t seem to be

Some thoughts on recent developments . . .

Elite persuasion and its limits

News reports suggest that President Biden got Speaker Mike Johnson to put a Ukraine aid bill on the floor of the House through good, old-fashioned persuasion:  Biden and his team convinced Johnson it was the right thing to do by sharing intelligence with him.  Biden didn’t berate Johnson in public.  I suspect he flattered Johnson in private.

Knowing how to deal with Congress is a critical skill for any president, and Biden seems to be particularly good at it.  Unfortunately, it is doubtful that many voters understand this.  And being effective behind the scenes at negotiating and cajoling makes it difficult for Biden to take credit for legislation.  To a considerable

Law professor Eric Segall is a leading critic of the Supreme Court.  In a blog post today, he doesn’t pull any punches:

The disaster that was the Trump v. United States oral argument reminded me of how little the Roberts Court has actually cared about rule of law values and legal transparency during its 18-year run. Leaving aside the overturning or narrowing of numerous landmark cases from abortion to affirmative action to the free exercise of religion, the Roberts Court has consistently, in the Court’s most important and publicized opinions, engaged in subterfuge, sleight of hand, and even outright lying. 

In this post, I discuss landmark cases involving affirmative action, health care, voting rights, separation of church and state, and the

At Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s immunity claim, Justice Alito worried that prosecuting former presidents would create an incentive for incumbent presidents to subvert democracy to remain in office and avoid prosecution (Transcript, p. 110-11):

JUSTICE ALITO: All right.  Let me end –end with just a question about what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want.  I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is –is the incumbent.

MR. DREEBEN: Of course.

JUSTICE ALITO: All right.  Now, if a –an incumbent who loses a

I try not to blog about stuff I don’t know much about, but sometimes I can’t help myself.  This is one of those times, so caveat lector.  This could be way off base.  Do not quote this to your friends.  Do not train your AI on it.

Argentina’s libertarian President Javier Milei has made noises about dollarizing the Argentine economy.  I have no idea if this would be a smart thing to do, but let’s assume it is.

One argument against dollarization is simply that you can’t dollarize without getting your hands on lots of dollars, to replace existing pesos with.  The economy needs currency to function, and even rapidly depreciating pesos are better than barter.  Here is Tyler Cowen:

Another concern, more significant, is that dollarization would be

Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy, the rule of law, and to basic rights and human decency.  It is hard to see how anyone could deny this.  Trump encouraged violence and fraud to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election.  He continues to insist that he won the election, despite losing in court over and over, even in front of judges that he appointed.  In his campaign for re-election, he has emphasized revenge against his political enemies and threatened to politicize the justice department, and he may do the same with the military.  He has vilified immigrants and threatens mass roundups and deportations.  He sows religious division.  He uses dehumanizing language and celebrates authoritarianism, both at home and abroad.  He

I want to respond to some of the comments on my last post and sharpen my own thinking by gaming out some ways the campaign might evolve.  I assume our goal is to have a Democrat – very probably Biden – beat Trump.  The question is how to maximize our odds of achieving this goal.

Bill Kristol argues today that Biden should step down now and allow an open contest for the democratic nomination.  This is debatable advice (as he acknowledges).  As Seth Masket notes, it seems likely that voters are down on Biden because they are down on the state of the country, and that if they are down on Biden they are down on Democrats generally.  This suggests that switching horses will not help, and Masket points out that it has not helped in the past (Truman and

Democracy and world peace have had a very bad week.

The special counsel’s unprofessional, partisan decision has put Biden’s age and mental status front and center in the presidential contest.  Most commentators agree that it is up to President Biden to dispel doubts about his fitness, primarily by making himself more available to interviewers and voters.  Whether this will work remains to be seen.  Even if Biden is mentally fit, which I believe is likely, he is clearly an undisciplined speaker, and given the circumstances his inevitable gaffes may well be interpreted as evidence of mental decline.  There is no guarantee of success.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, yesterday the stakes of the election became even higher as Trump made his antipathy

One of my themes here has been that the Biden administration and congressional Democrats should actively and publicly seek compromise with Republicans.  The events this week illustrate the logic of compromise clearly. 

The perceived crisis on the southern border was probably the biggest single threat to Biden’s re-election, or at least the biggest threat that he could take action to ameliorate (unlike the risk of an economic downturn, etc.).  Offering to compromise was a “heads Democrats win, tails Republicans lose” proposition.  If Republicans rejected an offer to negotiate, Biden could have shifted some of the blame for the current immigration mess to the Republicans.  If he managed to get something passed, he could have taken credit for

Haley 

Nikki Haley is staying in the race for the Republican nomination, at least for now.   

Why?  If she only cares about becoming president, this year could be her best shot even with Trump way ahead of her in the polls.  Trump may be convicted or become incapacitated, and she could win the nomination as the last woman standing.  It is far from clear her political brand will be in better shape with Republican primary voters 4 years from now.  She may also genuinely believe Trump is dangerous and want to derail his candidacy, or she may just want to poke Trump in the eye.  In any event, she could do serious damage to Trump’s general election prospects by emphasizing his cognitive decline and goading him into overreacting to her perceived

There is so much to say about the Claudine Gay affair, anti-semitism at Harvard, and Harvard’s response to recent student protests that I have opted to say nothing.  But over at Café Hayek, libertarian economist Donald Boudreaux asks an interesting question:

How does Claudine Gay’s “my truth” differ from Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts”? It seems to me that these ‘concepts’ share much with each other and that each is equally unwarranted. 

Well, here’s one way that Gay and Conway differ.  According to Google Advanced Search, the words Claudine and Harvard have appeared together in 19 blog posts since December 11.  (For those of you keeping score at home, all of these posts were critical.)  The words (Kellyanne) or (Conway and “alternative