Loose Tabs (8)

What the world did while I was counting jazz critic ballots

I've been averaging one Loose Tabs post per month since I threw in the towel following the 2024 election and gave up on aiming for weekly posts. The idea behind the title is that I keep lots of tabs open in my browser (Firefox), and often open one when I run across something that looks interesting. Days later, I find these open tabs and want to close them, but some seems like worth keeping a link to. So I figured that even if I'm out of the news blogging business, I still need some way to keep notes for possible future reference. I didn't have any schedule in mind, but every 3-4 weeks I feel the need to check my sources and see what's happened recently.

I spent most of last week doing just that. And since the last time I published one was June 14, there was quite a bit to catch up on. (Sure, some stories, like Graham Platner, can now be forgotten. But others, like the Iran war, are still very much with us.)

These posts take a long time, and could conceivably take forever, so at some point I have to force myself to stop and publish. I did that on August 1. I rushed it out a bit: no table of contents, just a quick spell check and a glance at the formatting. I figured I'd re-read it later, make a few more edits, maybe add some relevant links. But the main purpose of the re-read would be to write this post for Substack: an executive summary of sorts, but mostly just further reflections.

I'm going to minimize the number of links here, as they may score against the email. I may later add more links into the archive version of this piece. In any case, I'm referring to entries in this Loose Tabs.

Let's start with Donald Trump. While he's not the root of all evil, he's its inescapable face. Not only is he directly responsible for a large share of what's gone wrong with the world, he's a constant reminder that the US presidency, and effectively the entire US political system, is not going to be of any help to us until after his term ends (probably 900 days, barring death or, less likely, a majority of Republicans growing a conscience). I have four sections devoted to Trump and various aspects of his administration, plus one for his Iran war, and one for the party he basically owns. During his first four years, I thought that most of the really bad things were due to the generic Republicans he employed, and that his own character flaws were just window dressing designed to draw attention away from the real damage. But this time, both ends of the equation are much worse. That's largely because he's found he can get away with shit he couldn't imagine doing before, and because the creeps and cretins in the Republican rank-and-file are seeing what he's doing, and trying to push their own luck. The result is that the stories in the war, law, and admin sections are not just bad: they're way beyond anything that we're used to, or really know how to process. And my guess is that I'm barely scratching the surface in those areas.

The personal section on Trump is at least easier to understand. There are roughly three sets of stories there:

1. Trump's vanity projects, which are orders of magnitude more vain than anyone had previously attempted.
2. Trump's corrupt dealings, including with his own government.
3. Trump's plummeting popularity.

Again, I'm only scratching the surface here. I've basically ignored the torrent of memes he produces (although I note one under "tweets"). The Trump news is overwhelming and exhausting. We know enough already to last us through the election, and way beyond. The only question is when (if ever) others will wise up and start to rein him in. In this regard, I suggest you look at the Seth Meyers dissection of the White House Correspondents Dinner. While it mostly focuses on Trump's own ineptness, the main thing it reveals is the Stockholm Syndrome of the reporters charged with covering the Trump and his administration.

One problem with Loose Tabs is that I'm mostly reacting to stories, rather than to their underlying themes and subtexts. What all of the Trump stories have in common is that he has what for lack of a better word we'll call a "superpower": he draws energy from his base by offending (some might say enraging, others humiliating) his enemies, and no one has really checked him on it. The Fox press is fawning. The mainstream press is wary, a strange mix of embarrassed yet still striving to be respectful. Scolding him just makes him double down. His fans hate the scolds, and see him as courageous. Worse, because they see him as dominating people they hate, they think he's on their side. That's ridiculous. He's only out for his own grift and ego, which is becoming increasingly obvious as he fails at virtually everything he attempts. But he's one note: he can only continue playing the rule-breaking tough guy, as that's worked remarkably well so far.

I keep toying with the idea of writing a "ten worst things Trump has done" list, and he keeps trying to add stupid stuff to the list, to basically, as Steve Bannon advised, to "flood the zone with bullshit." The list has so many really serious things I'm tempted to dismiss things like putting his face on money and passports as just sick jokes. But he seems to spend most of his waking hours figuring out ways to infuriate us. After all, he has regular Republicans busy wrecking the country. They hardly need his direction, as if he could even provide it.

The next thing to look at is the section on war, starting with Iran. The time period started with the Memorandum of Understanding, which I wrote about on June 22. Given the combination of arrogance, ignorance, and fear that goaded Trump into attacking Iran back in February, the Memorandum was surprisingly sensible. The only really viable way to negotiate the end of a conflict is for both parties to search out and support the needs of the other, in some sort of mutually beneficial accommodation. The best possible solution here would be for Iran and the US to leave themselves no further grounds for conflict: Iran would be secure, and able to function like a normal country; the US (and Israel) would no longer have to deal with Iranian interference in their own affairs — a bit more of a stumbling block, since the US (and Israel) routinely intervene in other countries. The Memorandum didn't solve all issue, but in promising complete freedom from sanctions, it made a major step in the right direction.

However, it fell apart in about a week, as the US tried an end run around Iran's Strait of Hormuz leverage, and Israel continued to demolish Lebanon. So Trump restarted the bombing, and it more or less continues. (They're talking ceasefire today, but really?) Of course, a big part of the problem is that Netanyahu and his cronies like the late Lindsey Graham — who seems to have encouraged Ukraine into attacking Iran just to boost Ukraine's utility as a US ally — have worked consistently to wreck any possible peace agreement.

At this point, I think every observer who's not totally in thrall to the Israel lobby or the war profiteers recognizes that the only path out of this war is to go back to the terms of the Memorandum, only with more explicit guarantees not to pull the kind of tricks Trump and Netanyahu resorted to. I remain convinced that it is the Gulf States that will force this war to an end. The question is, how much pressure does Iran have to put on them to get them to sway Trump (which is difficult not because Trump is obdurate but because it means turning Trump against Netanyahu). Thus far Iran has treated them rather gingerly, but the more successful the US bombing campaign is — and we have no idea, one way or another — the more they will be tempted to attack the Gulf States. There is no scenario where the US bombs Iran into submission without also dooming its ostensible allies in the region. Trump may be able to flout his power at home, but in the world, he has real limits.

Then, of course, there is the section on Israel, which continues to kill and displace Palestinians, while occupying and demolishing a large swath of Lebanon (and Syria, which is less reported). I could have added much more to this section, but I think you get the idea. The following section is on how Israel is viewed around the world, especially in the US. Despite furious efforts to curtail free speech, especially in the US and Germany, support for Israel continues to slip. One might argue that Israel's killing has slowed down to pre-genocide levels, but the intent is still there, and they're still doing what they think they can get away with, which with Trump distracted is quite a bit.

I have several sections on politics, looking forward to the November elections. I haven't paid much attention to the primary contests, although many of the sources I read are psyched by the successes of leftish Democrats. Upcoming primaries in Wisconsin and Michigan get a brief notice. I'm not convinced that Michigan is really a referendum on Israel, although people on both sides would like to think so. My general feeling is that any Democrat who can win in November is a good Democrat. And I wouldn't assume that the more "moderate" (which usually translates as indebted to business lobbyists) candidate would do better. So I'm reluctant to get my hopes up, or to second-guess the primary voters. As long as Trump is president, there is very little Democrats in Congress (or the states) can do, but replacing Republicans with Democrats of any persuasion is a worthwhile step.

I do note that Kansas's primary is next week. Senator Roger Marshall is so bad he's motivated a dozen Democrats to run against him — something I've never seen before, where even getting one challenger is often a chore. The poll favorite is a guy who would become one of the most conservative Democrats in Washington. None of my friends can stand him, but I'll happily vote for him against Marshall — a MD who during Covid prescribed Ivermectin to his family to build up his Trump credentials.

I do cite a number of articles about "centrist" attacks on the growing democratic wing of the Democratic party, because I regard their arguments are counterproductive if not downright traitorous. One of my arguments for Harris in 2024 was that, regardless of how much you oppose her specific positions on matters like Israel, she was open and approachable, at least on humanitarian grounds, in a way that Trump could never have been. The "center" should view the left at least that generously. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has pushed hard for Medicare for All ever since he entered Congress, but he was a reliable vote for ACA when it counted. It's very rare for any left Democrat not to support meaningful reform because it's not good enough.

The section on Democrats has several long comments as I work my way around partisan strategy issues. Under Yoder, I talk about climate change as an issue, and that could be expanded quite a bit. Under Kruse, Prokop, and Scher, I talk about various aspects of the center vs. left "civil war." Much of this boils down to the "centrist" promise to win elections and fix problems: even when they did the former (not often enough), they failed to do the latter. The latter is easier to understand, given that the left has a lock on real answers to most of our problems. (This is basically because capitalism, at least when given anywhere near as much power as the capitalists have enjoyed since the 1980s, really sucks. We're not saying you have to replace it, but you do need to limit its power, and provide alternatives where it doesn't work at all well.) The losing is a bit harder to explain, but in a world where very few people are doing well, and relatively few of them are liberals, policies that only benefit liberal elites aren't very popular, especially given a media biased to hang them on their elitism. And the protests of elite Democrats that they really want to help middle class people ring hollow, because they don't deliver results.

There is more on Ukraine this month than there has been in quite a while. I'm not quite sure what this means, but continuing the war is becoming increasingly untenable. So right now there's a lot of jockeying for position, with both sides racking up strikes that don't actually move the lines but play well in the press. Reasonable people should be able to sort this out[1], but instead we have Trump, Putin, and Zelensky: the former has no skills, while the other two are likely to lose when the fighting stops. And you can try to factor Europe in, but it's hard to figure out what they really want out of the deal.

The section on Republicans is very spotty. Most are mere Trump ciphers at the moment, but JD Vance is getting some attention (with more pieces in the Books section). I've also grouped in donors (like Ken Griffin) and "right-wing gasbags" (Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Erika Kirk), but there's many more where they came from. Only one breaking scandal, but again that's not an isolated story. But how much do you really need to know about Ken Paxton?

The sections on Economics, Technology, Environment, and Media are pretty anemic. I wish I could focus more on those stories, as they represent tectonic forces that will wind up mattering more than the political noise that dominates our attention. I'm near the end of reading four books on AI (straight, or six in the past year), and I expect to spend some practical time working with it later this year. I'm approaching it cautiously, wary of hype, much as I did climate change when I first read McKibben in the 1990s — a study I've still not finished, but one I'm getting a pretty good feel for.

In the Miscellaneous Pieces section, the one by Paul Starr on "Proportional Representation" gives me another chance to lay out my "Representative Democracy" ideas. I should turn that into a proper essay, but it seems like it deserves a much bigger platform than I actually have. (Same for ideas like "Right to Exile" and "War Insurance.") The one on Emily Topping could also have been turned into a full-blown essay, or two: one on how all digitally reproducible art should be available free to everyone; and one on what to do with all the "owned media" we have lying around (I probably have 10,000 CDs and no idea how many books, which should be in a library somewhere; I'd be much happier if I could look them up whenever I wanted to, without having to sort through all the physical clutter).

The Books section is very scattered, a mix of reviews and pieces about people who write books and pieces about the things they write about in books, which could be anything. I'm still hoping to get back into writing up some Book Roundup pieces (I'm over a year behind on that). While I read a fair amount of journalism, books are still for me the place where ideas get taken seriously, and as such become real.

The Music section is an accidental add: I had a piece I wanted to cite, and didn't have any better place to put it. It should probably become a regular section. Like Obituaries, although I still haven't developed a regular approach there. I'm surprised I didn't come up with more links on Alan Greenspan, whose influence on America has probably been greater, and no less malign, than that of any other mere bureaucrat since the heyday of Robert Moses, J Edgar Hoover, and Floyd Dominy. Of course, it takes some time for reflections, especially critical ones, to emerge. I put Zach Beauchamp's piece on Gordon S Wood under books, but it is really a delayed obituary.

Having scanned to the bottom of the post, I've quite possibly once again written more than anyone feels up to reading. If so, I don't quite see how I can help you. There's just a lot to cover, and it can only be reduced so much before you're not talking about anything.

[1]: My Ukraine/Russia solution is to freeze the current lines and cease fire and other efforts at subversion. Referendums would be held in the Russian-occupied lands, and in any Ukrainian-occupied lands that Putin chooses to challenge. Both sides can decide whether to allow refugees to return to their areas, but people on both sides should be free to leave. Absentee voting is possible, but not required. My expectation (or perhaps hope) is that the areas will accept the current division, making it legitimate (and not just a deal based on relative power and terror. I'd like to see a second round of referendums in 4-6 years, in case there is any voter remorse. This would also give both sides incentive to rebuild, as if they didn't, they'd probably lose. This election regime would also offer a set of guidelines for peaceably settling other Russian boundary conflicts, such as the ones in/around Georgia. After the elections, the newly validated Ukraine would be free to join the EU (if invited), and to form security deals with the US/Europe, but not to join NATO. (Ukraine could be defended by NATO, but could not join in NATO operations elsewhere. A Russian attack would trigger the defense arrangement, but preëmptive attack against Russia would not be supported.) Most sanctions against Russia would be dropped, with the rest removed if other grievances are settled. Russia and the US would agree to negotiate further arms reduction treaties, with Europe and possibly others involved. Some sort of international fund would be set up to deal with refugees and reconstruction. Any future violations would be referred to an international court, which could assess damages but not direct military response.

Note that this entire war could have been prevented had many of these provisions had been established earlier. The principle is that people in a region should be able to decide whether to remain in a country or leave. While Putin is primarily responsible for this conflict turning into a war, the conflict goes deeper, and he was not the only one culpable for escalating it. While NATO was primarily defensive during the Cold War, it took a more offensive posture after the Soviet Union dissolved, especially as the US started using it for expanding military operations around the world. I would argue that NATO should be abolished, but it is hard to do that now without agreement from Russia to respect the peace of its neighbors. But dissolving NATO should at least be considered as a bargaining chip. Reviving the Cold War is a truly horrible idea.