Unanticipated Consequences

Official stupidity can do a lot of harm, as the daily examples from the Trump administration have made all too clear. (Official cowardice–can we spell Congressional Republicans?–doesn’t help.)

Trump’s “gut decision” to wage war on Iran, and the warrior cosplay of Pete Hegseth (who should never have been allowed near the grown-up’s table, let alone the Defense Department) will undoubtedly have multiple horrific consequences. We are already seeing some of them–along with obvious evidence that the “Peace President” consulted no intelligence personnel and engaged in nothing so pedestrian as planning before authorizing an assault that will destabilize the Middle East and quite possibly the world.

Just classify it as another  administration “whoops”–like the raging re-emergence of measles, and the “accidental” deaths of peaceful protestors….

But as Paul Krugman has reminded us, sometimes stupidity inadvertently teaches people a truth they’ve been trying to ignore.

It’s very obvious that Trump gave no thought at all about the huge importance of the Strait of Hormuz to America’s continued reliance on his beloved fossil fuels. And in just a couple of weeks, it has turned out that Trump’s war of choice has made a strong case for renewable energy.  We are suddenly being reminded that the wind and the sun don’t require transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

As Krugman notes, the policy folks who have been beating the drums for solar and wind power generally argue for renewable energy based upon its environmental benefits, and its role in moderating the damage caused by fossil fuels that have a major  role in  climate change and air pollution, the latter of which imposes significant damage on human health and reduces life expectancy. Trump’s “wag the dog” war has pointed to another reason we need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels: “In a dangerous world, it’s infinitely safer to rely on the sun and the wind than to depend on fossil fuels that must be transported long distances, from nations that are untrustworthy, often exploitative and located in regions that frequently devolve into war zones.”

Ya think?

Krugman tells us that approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil supply comes through the Strait of Hormuz. It isn’t just oil, either– the Strait is a “crucial route for shipment of liquefied natural gas and fertilizer.” When, as now, that passage is effectively closed, there are no good alternatives.

It is still very early in this unwise conflict, but consumers are already seeing rising gas prices. Krugman expresses surprise that crude oil prices haven’t increased even more steeply, but he is also surprised at how quickly retail gasoline prices have surged.

It isn’t only Americans who are feeling the effects. Not that Trump gives a rats patoot about our longtime allies, but Europe is being affected as well. As Krugman notes, and environmentalists know, most of Europe is far ahead of the US in renewable energy capacity, but it remains dependent on imported gas for a significant portion of its heating and electricity generation needs. Trump’s ill-considered war is hurting their economies. Meanwhile, Krugman tells us that Asian nations, “scrambling to replace their LNG imports from the Middle East, are driving up prices worldwide.”

Now, Trump hates renewable energy, especially wind power. He has tried to destroy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of investment in offshore wind turbines and sought to block land-based projects as well, although in some cases he has been stopped by the courts. He has also put pressure on other countries to go back to fossil fuels. On Tuesday he lashed out at the UK, calling the British “very uncooperative” and attacking them for having “windmills all over the place that are ruining the country.” But Britain would be in much worse shape right now if wind power weren’t supplying about 30 percent of its electricity.

And as Alan Beattie recently wrote in the Financial Times, U.S. stupidity has once again gifted China. “From the US you get forced into trade deals promising a future of burning fossil fuels whose price is subject to wildly destructive US adventurism. From China you get reliably cheap EVs and green tech to generate renewables.”

As Krugman concludes, Trump’s ill-conceived war against Iran ends up making a strong case for nations to seek energy independence. For many of those nations, that will means wind and solar and nuclear. The rising gas prices in the U.S. also bring that lesson home–justifying my devotion to my Prius.

Donald Trump, hero of renewable energy? Talk about unanticipated consequences…

Comments

We The People

I know it’s bad.

There’s a question I get more and more frequently–during an after-speech Q and A, at lunch or dinner with friends, and on this platform: do I think the American experiment over? Is America going the way of Orban’s Hungary, or (even worse) Hitler’s Germany? Will the immense damage being done every day by Trump’s corrupt clown car of an administration prove to be irreversible?

There are obviously good reasons to expect the worst. I even have friends who are leaving the U.S.–heading for countries with competent governments (and national health care systems).

But I remain convinced that we will emerge from the current nightmare–that We the People will defeat the cranks, bigots and White Christian nationalists who currently exercise and abuse power. 

I agree wholeheartedly with a recent newsletter from Robert Hubbell, in which he pointed to the incredible courage and effectiveness of the people of Minnesota. He pointed to the “Stop ICE for Good” campaign that he says has stiffened the spines of Democratic lawmakers and raised the anxiety levels of “mid-term wary Republicans.”

Trump tried to intimidate the people of Minnesota by unleashing a secret police force that had been told “the Constitution does not apply” and “you have absolute immunity” from state prosecution. But the people of Minnesota refused to be intimidated. Instead, they formed the equivalent of a citizens ’ mutual aid society, protesting, ride-sharing, grocery shopping, and serving as the community’s eyes and ears, watching and listening for the roving gangs of paramilitary thugs. The people of Minnesota made their stand in the coldest months of the year, braving temperatures that sometimes dipped to 30 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit).

In the end, the citizens of Minnesota won their battle with Trump’s Gestapo. As Hubbell acknowledges, that victory is not complete–but it is evidence that resistance is ultimately more powerful than autocrats understand. The magnificent effort mounted by ordinary Americans in Minnesota should encourage all of us–and it should also prompt each of us to do whatever we can to bring this increasingly ugly time to a close.

That brings me to a widely-cited eulogy delivered at Jesse Jackson’s funeral by former President Obama, in which he counseled us not to lose hope–not to give in to despair, despite the extent of the assaults we currently face. Obama has always been a powerful speaker, and there’s a reason so many outlets have quoted his remarks, especially the following paragraphs.

We are living in a time when it can be hard to hope. Each day we wake up to some new assault on our democratic institutions, another setback to the idea of the rule of law, an offense to common decency. Every day you wake up to things you just didn’t think were possible. Each day, we’re told by those in high office to fear each other and to turn on each other, and that some Americans count more than others, and that some don’t even count at all. Everywhere we see greed and bigotry being celebrated and bullying and mockery masquerading as strength, we see science and expertise denigrated while ignorance and dishonesty and cruelty and corruption are reaping untold rewards. Every single day we see that, and it’s hard to hope in those moments. So it may be tempting to get discouraged, to give into cynicism. It may be tempting for some to compromise with power, and grab what you can, or even for good people to maybe just put your head down and wait for the storm to pass.

But Jackson’s life inspires us to take a harder path. His voice calls on each of us to be heralds of change, to be messengers of hope…. Wherever we have a chance to make an impact, whether it’s in our school or our workplaces or our neighborhoods or our cities, not for fame, not for glory, or because success is guaranteed, but because it gives our life purpose, because it aligns with what our faith tells us God demands, and because if we don’t step up, no one else will.

The citizens of Minnesota stepped up. And by stepping up, they showed the rest of us what We the People can accomplish when–as a popular protest sign reminds us– enough of us say no.

Comments

Netanyahu’s Legacy

This is a very difficult post for me to write, but I think it’s necessary.

When I was younger, I saw no conflict between being a patriotic American and wholeheartedly supporting the state of Israel. My father fought in the Second World War, and I lived through the horrifying disclosures that emerged in its aftermath–the pictures from the concentration camps, the “Black Book” detailing Nazi atrocities that my mother cried over…It was painfully obvious that Jews needed a country where they would be safe from the persistent and often deadly anti-Semitism that had followed us since biblical times. When my mother put her dimes and quarters in one of those ubiquitous “blue boxes” or sent dollars to plant trees in Israel, I saw no conflict between that support and a deep and abiding allegiance to my own country.

Benjamin Netanyahu has exploded that confidence. Worse, his regime has increased anti-Semitism against American Jews–and for that matter, Jews globally.

Substantial numbers of Israelis are opposed to Netanyahu, and I certainly don’t want to join the chorus of those painting all Israelis as culpable, just as a majority of Americans cannot be held responsible for Donald Trump. (Reams of polling confirm that a majority of us vehemently oppose the venality and stupidity of America’s current leadership.)

American Jews are currently re-examining what has been our reflexive support for Israel in the light of that country’s recent actions. If survey research is to be believed, a majority of us strongly disapprove of the Netanyahu government –especially what we view as a wildly disproportionate response to the horrific savagery of October 7th. Several American Jewish organizations publicly support the Palestinian cause and a two-state solution.

These days, it is quite possible to be pro-Jewish and anti-Zionist–at least, anti what Zionism has become–and that posture has become increasingly common.

It is also, obviously, possible to be pro-Zionist and profoundly anti-Semitic. Donald Trump is a pre-eminent example.

As a recent, thoughtful article in the Guardian, written by a Professor of Jewish studies, put it, the joint military strikes on Iran are forcing a “reckoning between two urgent, legitimate, and partially contradictory imperatives – and neither should be abandoned.”

Too many Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and American Jewish Committee (AJC) have suggested that this is the time to get behind the war effort and not to ask questions. But to say that Americans should not ask questions about the relationship between Israel and the United States because it might raise antisemitic conspiracy theories means handing over the tools of democratic accountability. That is too high a price.

A few days ago, I shared a post in which I distinguished between patriotism and nationalism. The position being taken by the ADL mistakes a nationalist reaction for a patriotic one. Genuinely patriotic Jews in Israel have argued against the actions of the Netanyahu government, and American organizations like Jewish Voices for Peace and JStreet have opposed those actions as well. It is possible to be pro-American and anti-MAGA, and it is equally possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Netanyahu. Indeed, I’d argue that being pro-America requires one to be anti-MAGA, and that being pro-Israel requires opposing Netanyahu.

As the Guardian article noted, there are plenty of people who have never needed a pretext to hate Jews, and in the wake of the attacks on Iran, “social media has been awash in the language of “puppet masters”, “dual loyalties” and insinuations that Jewish money bought American blood.” Far-right influencers increasingly echo Nazi propaganda. “This is the dual-edged reality of a political moment in which criticism of Israel has become newly acceptable across the American political spectrum.”

A healthy critique of the Israeli government is entirely appropriate, but it is different from–and does not and cannot excuse– anti-Semitism.

It’s hard to disagree with the Guardian article’s observation that “it is valuable and necessary to ask questions about Israel’s role in US foreign policy. It is not defensible to praise Holocaust revisionists or to blame the Jews for killing Jesus. And the fact that the same figures can go from one to the other is part of why this moment is so dangerous, and so fraught.”

The way to fight anti-semitism is not to stop criticizing Israeli policy. It is to distinguish between that policy and Jewish identity. Benjamin Netanyahu’s legacy will be that he has enabled anti-Semites to ignore that distinction–imperilling both Israel and the Jewish people.

Comments

When Idiots Wage War…

In how many ways is Trump’s “war of whim” harming the United States? Let us count the ways…

Or perhaps we should just take note of the fact that we have deeply unserious, profoundly ignorant people in positions that require deep reservoirs of knowledge and expertise. Instead, we have an assortment of pompous pretenders and religious crackpots who have launched a war without even agreeing on its purpose.

Newsweek, among others, has reported on military leaders who have been telling troops that the Iran war has been launched as part of “God’s divine plan”– that “Trump and Jesus” are executing a divine purpose. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has received some 200 complaints from roughly 50 military installations about U.S. commanders expressly linking Christianity to the “biblically sanctioned” war in Iran.

If those pronouncements–suggesting a throwback to the Crusades–weren’t horrifying enough, a post by Rick Wilson at Lincoln Square details the consequences for American readiness we can expect when attacks are launched by people who lack any detailed understanding of military strategy, let alone of the geopolitical context in which they are operating. As he writes, we are getting “a masterclass in what happens when a man who thinks black and white World War II movies in his head from the 1950s are the reality of modern combat between technologically advanced nations.”

Wilson picks apart Trump’s recent assertion that America has a “virtually unlimited supply” of “medium and upper-medium grade munitions.”

That’s not how our production and inventory of ammunition, guided weapons, and everything that leaves the barrel or the rail works. That’s not how industrial production works. That’s not how physics works. That’s not, as the kids say, how any of this works.

The United States does not have an “unlimited” supply of anything except debt, MAGA bots, and Trump mentions in the Epstein files.

As Wilson points out–and as Trump clearly doesn’t understand–every missile, every bomb, every 155mm shell, every variety of munition–“requires a supply chain, materials, rare earths, propellants, explosives, electronics, trained labor, and years of planning. Wars are not fought “forever” even in Trump’s brainfog alternate reality. There’s no imaginary Indiana Jones warehouse full of missiles.”

And about that context…

Trump has also bragged that we have additional “high-grade weaponry” stored for us in “outlying countries.” The irony of noting our dependence on the alliances and overseas basing structures he has constantly threatened, insulted, or tried to extort rather obviously escapes him.

Wilson has much more detail about the current state of U.S. armaments, and the gross incompetence of withholding support from Ukraine, and I encourage you to click through and read the entire essay for those facts and figures. But the firehose of lies and boasts about readiness aren’t even the worst part of this fiasco. As Wilson writes,

Now let’s talk about the dangerous part: casually boasting about stockpile levels. There is a reason serious leaders don’t blurt out operational readiness claims on social media, as if they’re bragging about golf handicaps.

Even if the numbers were accurate (and spoiler alert: he doesn’t know, and we’re burning through long-lead-time systems like a drunken sailor on shore leave), publicly telegraphing assessments of readiness, sufficiency, and shortfalls is the kind of thing professionals handle with classified briefings, not all-caps self-congratulation.

“Wars can be fought forever.” No, they can’t.

Wars chew through materiel, money, alliances, and political capital. Ask the Romans. Ask the British Empire. Ask the Nazis (the old ones, not the new ones). Ask the Soviets in Afghanistan. Ask anyone who served from 2003-2021 in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The idea that modern, high-intensity warfare can be sustained indefinitely without economic, industrial, and human consequences is the strategic equivalent of saying your credit card has “virtually unlimited” funds because the machine hasn’t declined you yet. Those $30,000 Shahed drones getting knocked down by $3,000,000 Patriots is a bad exchange rate.

So here we are–Trump (and MAGA Jesus?) have made domestic American society meaner while dramatically undermining our international influence and authority.

If I can distill this disaster into a single lesson, a cautionary tale, it would be this: failing to distinguish between celebrity and  leadership is failure to understand how the world works, and voters who made that mistake–twice!–along with those who didn’t bother to vote, are responsible for the dire consequences of handing power to a clown car filled with people who haven’t the slightest understanding of their jobs, or the world they inhabit.

Comments

The Costs Of Means Testing

Back in the day, when I considered myself a Republican, lots of people in the GOP described themselves (as I did) as “fiscal conservatives and social liberals.” Those days, needless to say, are long gone; today’s GOP is exactly the opposite: fiscally promiscuous and socially illiberal. 

The U-turn on social policy is hard to miss: Republicans today seem to delight in making life unbearable for trans people,  dangerous for women with problem pregnancies, and uncomfortable for every American who isn’t a straight White Christian male. But too little attention has been paid to the other part of the party’s reversal, a total abandonment of fiscal restraint.

Republicans who used to advocate for a government that funded its expenditures with tax dollars–not necessarily “balancing the budget,” but exercising responsibility when it came to “tax and spend” policies– are long gone. The GOP is now the party of extravagant tax cuts for the rich, lavish subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and billions spent on a bloated military (costs that are metastasizing thanks to Trump’s illegal and dangerous war on Iran.)

But hey–they’re “saving” money by cutting services to the folks who rely on those “wasteful” social programs like Medicaid and SNAP.

Which brings me to one of my multiple hot button issues–the insanity of America’s approach to the social safety net. In fairness, the stupidity of that approach has been, and remains, essentially bipartisan. 

As I explained in the speech I shared yesterday, American social policy differs from social policy in happier (and equally capitalist) countries. Yes, it is punitive and shortsighted–but it is also needlessly and enormously expensive. Not because we are generous to those in need–perish the thought!–but because in our zeal to make sure that no one receives a penny to which they are unentitled, we have erected a massive, costly and inefficient system to “weed out” suspected slackers–a system that just happens to enrich private enterprises.

A recent post from the “Can We Still Govern” Substack addressed those costs.

The post began by quoting the CEO of Equifax, who was celebrating passage of the budget reconciliation bill and cheering an expected windfall he described as “just massive”– new rules that will make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to receive healthcare and food benefits.

Those rules increase the frequency of eligibility redeterminations, added work requirements for Medicaid recipients, and tied  federal funding for SNAP to error rates and work requirements. The CBO has estimated that these rules will strip Medicaid coverage from over 7 million people.

But for Equifax and other government contractors, this maze of new rules means profit.

Equifax extracts over $800 million worth of contracts from the federal government and state governments each year. Much of that total is for access to its Workforce Solutions product, the Work Number, which provides data on workers’ income and employment. The Work Number’s basic business model is to purchase exclusive rights to worker data from employers and payroll providers (often without a worker’s knowledge) and then sell that data to banks, creditors, and governments for a profit.

Since the United States, unlike many of our peer nations, has opted to means-test core government programs like healthcare, the government has become a huge buyer of this income data. In order to prove that a person is eligible for Medicaid, an Affordable Care Act Marketplace subsidy, or any number of safety net programs, state governments and federal agencies pay Equifax for data to verify that person’s income.

Worse, different federal and state agencies often pay half a dozen times for the same piece of income data about the same individuals. Money that might make life a little easier for struggling families goes instead to the bottom lines of very profitable corporations.

The President’s “beautiful bill” supercharged this process, doubling the number of times state Medicaid agencies need to verify many individuals’ income each year, and adding other new requirements. As the post says, “If you had tried to find the most efficient way to transfer taxpayer dollars from healthcare to a databroker, you could not have done much better.”

As the Indiana Business Journal recently reported, the new Medicaid work mandates were promoted as a means to save money, but states will have to spend millions to comply. Most states will have to update both their aging computer systems and their methods of verifying information through various databases–and the IBJ reports that “Most will have to turn to private contractors to meet the time crunch.”

It turns out that the real  “welfare queens” are the companies profiting from money meant to provide health care and feed hungry children.

Comments