Tuesday, March 03, 2026

THE IRAN WAR IS A MONEY SUCK AND DEMOCRATS SHOULD NEVER STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT

Greg Sargent has a strong opinion about what Democrats should be doing right now:
While some Democrats have gotten this right, more of them need to say forthrightly that this war is patently illegal and that Trump’s chief stated rationale for it—that Iran posed “imminent threats” to the United States—is utter nonsense.

“Democrats need to strongly make the point that there was no imminent threat and that this war is a violation of the Constitution—and illegal,” Representative Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told me. “Absent congressional approval, this is an illegal war.”
I think it's worth saying that the war is illegal, but I don't think it changes very many minds. It's a message that reinforces the anger of educated liberals who understand how our government works and what a president can or can't lawfully do, but the vast majority of Americans don't understand the legal constraints on a president and don't care. When asked, they'll tell pollsters that, yes, Congress should be consulted on war, but a refusal to consult Congress won't become a top issue for most of them.

I think this is a stronger Democratic argument:


That's from iran-cost-ticker.com. I don't know who's behind it. I don't know if it's accurate. But it's an effort to provide a running total of the cost of the war, in the manner of the National Debt Clock. The dollar cost escalates rapidly.

Paul Krugman has more data:
On Sunday, according to the U.S. military, Kuwaiti forces shot down three U.S. F-15s in a “friendly fire” incident.

... A new F-15 costs U.S. taxpayers $97 million. So that’s almost $300 million lost in seconds. And we should think about what could have been done with that money other than launch a war without a clear plan or an exit strategy....

One of the reasons to be disturbed by this war is the extraordinary amount of money the U.S. government is either laying out now or will have to lay out in the future to replace the spent munitions....

Linda Bilmes of Harvard’s Kennedy School estimates that Trump’s largely unsuccessful bombing campaign last year against the Iran-backed Islamist Houthis in Yemen — a far softer target than Iran itself — cost between $2.76 billion and $4.95 billion. Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump’s one-day strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, cost between $2.04 billion and $2.26 billion....

The current war is being waged not only with massive bombing but also with the use of large numbers of expensive interceptors to defend U.S. bases and U.S. allies against Iranian drones and missiles. So in just a few days we have surely incurred billions of dollars in cost. And if this war continues for an extended period, the costs could easily rise to the twenty to thirty billion dollar range.

... if we compare the cost of this war to what we spend to help needy Americans, then it’s clear that this war is extremely expensive compared with other ways we could have spent the funds. Put it this way: SNAP — the Supplemental Nutritional Food Assistance Program, formerly food stamps — spends an average of about $2,400 a year per recipient. CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program administered under Medicaid, provides comprehensive health care for about $3,000 per child.

So just replacing those three jets shot down over Kuwait — each of them, remember, with a price tag of $97 million — will cost about as much as providing 125,000 Americans with crucial food aid or providing healthcare to 100,000 American children. And the war might very well end up costing 100 times as much as the price of those jets.
I'm not sure Democrats should get into the weeds the way Krugman does. Reciting a string of numbers and per-capita costs isn't compelling rhetoric. If I were a Democratic officeholder or candidate, I'd just start with the topline number -- trhe cost of the war so far -- and say, "What are we getting for this? How does this help you in your day-to-day lives? What else could be done with this tax money taken from your pocket?"

Democrats have a rare opportunity. Ordinarily, it's easy to score political points by complaining about the high cost of whatever the government does, except in matters of defense and policing. As a rule, normies don't even bother comparing those huge costs to the often much lower costs of programs that serve other human needs, because they accept the premise that we need to spend whatever it takes to keep ourselves safe.

But this is an exception to the rule. It's a war that, unlike most U.S. wars, is unpopular at the outset. Apart from Republicans, no one wants this war. No one knows why it's being fought. Most Americans think it will make America less safe.

So Democrats should bring up the cost of this pointless war at every possible opportunity. Bring up the total cost. Bring up the daily cost. Ask how all that expense is making America safer. Ask how much we're all going to shell out before it's all over, if that day ever comes.

Monday, March 02, 2026

WHY LOOK AT REALITY WHEN YOU HAVE VIBES? (updated)

The New York Times has posted an unusually bad story under the headline "6 Voters React to Attacks on Iran Ahead of the Texas Primaries." Here's the subhead:
President Trump has said the attacks were necessary for the security of the United States and to free the Iranian people from oppression. Do voters agree?
But we don't learn whether voters agree with Trump, we learn whether six Texas voters agree with him -- and not one of them reports ever having voted for a Democrat.

I can understand focusing on Texas -- tomorrow is the state's primary election day, with early voting underway, and it's not clear who'll win Senate primaries in both major parties. But this is not a representative sample of Texas voters:
* "Nate McHale, 24, has voted for President Trump twice, a product of his conservative leanings. He supports the decision to strike Iran."

* "Craig Wallace is not a fan of President Trump’s style, but he supports his policies on the economy and immigration and has voted consistently for him since 2016. He supports the strikes in Iran as well...."

* "Tex Peterson has voted for President Trump in every presidential election. He supports the president’s policies generally, he said, and that goes for the strikes on Iran, too."

* "Matt Lutz is a libertarian and skeptical about foreign conflict. He voted for Gary Johnson, not President Trump, in 2016. But he said he supported the president’s approach to Iran, on balance...."

* "Angela Gschwend, a stalwart Trump supporter, ... said her Persian friends cried tears of joy upon learning of the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran over the weekend....

"'I’m a Christian. I believe in peace and love,' Ms. Gschwend said. 'But sometimes you have to fight when you’re attacked. They want to kill because they hate, and that’s the opposite of my worldview.'"
There's one Iran-attack skeptic, and even he was a Trump voter:
* "Gael Ramirez, a student who describes himself as an independent, voted for President Trump for the first time in the 2024 election....

"He is skeptical that the nation will be helped by the strikes on Iran."
Six people, no Clinton, Biden, or Harris voters, five people on board with Trump's attacks.

You'll say that the Times loves Republicans and therefore we shouldn't be surprised at this. But the paper's editorial board called the attack on Iran "reckless," and the paper has published deeply skeptical columns by Nicholas Kristof, David French, Ben Rhodes, and others.

Previous roundups of ordinary voters' opinions haven't been quite so biased. A piece titled "11 Voters on Trump’s First Year," published on December 29, included four people identified as Harris voters and five identified as Trump voters. An October story called "7 Voters Weigh In on Trump’s New Ballroom" had a similar mix.

I think the Texas panel is skewed Republican because the Times has fallen for Texas vibes. It's true that Republicans win every statewide race there, and have throughout this century. But it's not a blood-red state like West Virginia or Idaho, where Democrats struggle to reach 30% of the vote.

Donald Trump won Texas comfortably in 2024, by a 56%-42% margin. But Trump's Texas victory margin in 2020 was 52%-46%. Biden won 5,259,126 votes in Texas in 2020; Harris won 4,835,250 in 2024. The Times couldn't find any of these people, or any of the 3,877,868 Texans who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Just as the myth of Trump's near-universal appeal in the heartland survives his abysmal polling, the myth of Texas as a state made up exclusively of pickup-driving Republican cowboys survives its actual recent voting history. So the Times prints the vibes.

*****

UPDATE: The headline has been changed to "6 Conservative Voters React to Attacks on Iran Ahead of the Texas Primaries." But you can see the original headline here.

Sunday, March 01, 2026

TRUMP SHOULD HAVE GONE TO CONGRESS, FOR ALL THE GOOD THAT EVER DOES

We're at war with Iran, and all the right-thinking people in our political culture are saying the same thing: The president should have gone to Congress. Here's Hakeem Jeffries:
Overnight, Donald Trump announced the start of massive and ongoing military operations against Iran. The framers of the United States Constitution gave Congress the sole power to declare war as the branch of government closest to the American people.

Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region. However, absent exigent circumstances, the Trump administration must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war.
That constitutional requirement has been degraded for decades. The Constitution says flatly, "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War," but we haven't had a formal congressional declaration of war since World War II. What we've had are congressional authorizations of military force, or military actions authorized by the UN Security Council and funded by Congress.

I think presidents should go to Congress before taking America to war, though the process doesn't accomplish much. David French writes:
... the constitutional structure, when followed, ... helps provide accountability. To make the case to Congress, a president doesn’t just outline the reasons for war; he also outlines the objectives of the conflict. This provides an opportunity to investigate the weaknesses of the case for the conflict, along with the possibility of success and the risks of failure.
But that always leads to the same outcome: the president gets to do what he wants. It's valuable because at least there's a public discussion of what we all know the president is going to do anyway. It's also valuable because we retain the notion that we have multiple branches of government and we aren't a dictatorship.

In effect, our Republican Congress actually has authorized this and other Trump acts of military adventurism, just as it has authorized the rest of his dictatorial moves -- it has authorized them by using silence as assent. The unstated but obvious message this Congress has sent since January of last year has been: Unless we say otherwise, you can do whatever the hell you want, Mr. President. You're our Daddy. Daddy can do as he pleases.

Without announcing it, campaigning on it, or consulting with the rest of us, congressional Republicans have replaced our system of government with Christian-right male "headship." Republicans already believed that Democrats have no legitimate place in government, and they've since decided that Republicanism is embodied in one man, so he gets to decide more or less everything, as they believe the man should in the family. It's a system that works out nicely for Republicans because the base loves Trump and agrees that he should be allowed to do whatever he pleases, and most Republican candidates don't need anything but a strong turnout from the base to win elections.

The public, when asked by pollsters, says Congress should be involved in decisions to go to war, but Americans have such a vague understanding of how our government is supposed to work that there isn't across-the-board outrage at Trump's unilateralism. So I imagine all future Republican presidents will operate this way if they have Republican congressional majorities.

Saturday, February 28, 2026

WAR WITH IRAN: FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD BETTER

As Dave Weigel reminds us, this was the Donald Trump campaign's messaging on the subject of peace and war in 2024:


You may think the Trump base is against war with Iran -- polling earlier this year said that only a minority of Republicans wanted this war. In a Quinnipiac poll in January, 35% of Republicans wanted to go to war with Iran, while 53% opposed war. A University of Maryland poll early this month also said that war with Iran had 35% GOP support (but opposition was only 25%).

As Trump has made it clear that being a good Republican means being in favor of whatever cockamamie war he wants to fight, GOP support for war with Iran has risen -- it's 58% in YouGov polling earlier this week.

Republican support for this will only increase now that it's underway. But overall support in that YouGov poll was only 27% (with opposition at 49%).

Because gerrymandering, the rural skew of the Senate, and a 2024 vote against the status quo have given Republicans more power than their numbers in the population would justify, once again we're doing something that's supported by the pro-Trump minority of the country and only the pro-Trump minority. (This is why Republicans in Congress will stand aside, as usual, and let Trump usurp their powers.)

Pro-war propagandists have their memes lined up. On X, the usually pro-Trump Andrew Tate declared opposition to the war:


In his replies, this meme shows up more than once:


Tate is told that Iranians are exultant:


And that this is a noble cause:


And here come the Trump-is-a-badass memes:


X's algorithm places these comments near the top, right under British racist Tommy Robinson's take:


You need to scroll down to see anti-war responses to Tate, and many of them are, unsurprisingly, anti-Semitic:


If any minds are being changed right now, or vague leanings reinforced, it's probably happening on social media. Musk's site will sell you right-wing propaganda one way or another. But it seems to be telling us that pro-Trump = pro-war, and 2024's MAGA principles have been replaced by the exact opposite, which are the new MAGA principles.

None of this should be surprising. Here's a Trump campaign ad that was released in 2023:


When it appeared, I wrote:
Yes, it attacks "the global elitists" who "send your kids to war." But it also stirs up anger at perceived foreign enemies. Eight seconds in, we see Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, China's Xi Jinping, a Mao poster, and people we're expected to read as jihadists. The narrator says:
Enemies and tyrants on opposite sides of the globe laugh at us.
At 1:16, we see a clip of Trump from his presidency; he's walking with a military escort. At 1:24, we see him saluting against a blue sky while military helicopters hover in formation overhead. A caption reads: DON'T MESS WITH US.


This is not Ron Paul-style isolationism. Trump's ad-makers know that the base doesn't want that.
I added:
... GOP voters were extremely pro-adventurism twenty years ago and are ready to embrace adventurism again, if it's sold by a president they like and if the enemy is someone they hate (or are carefully trained to hate).

I don't know if a reelected Trump would really get us into a war -- but if he does, his "isolationist" fan base will be 100% behind him. Maybe Tucker Carlson will be critical of the war on his podcast. It won't matter. Right-wing voters hate non-white foreigners too much to completely abandon militarism, just the way they did when the Bushes fought wars they unquestioningly supported. They want to believe Trump can give them "peace through strength" -- an America so intimidating that no one challenges us. But if that fails and there's war, they'll be there for it.
And here we are.

*****

And no, I don't believe this is meant as a distraction from Epstein.

This is not a distraction. Trump wants to be the most consequential person who ever lived, and he thinks he's within reach of that status.

— Steve M. (@stevemnomoremister.bsky.social) February 28, 2026 at 7:24 AM

This is the foreign policy equivalent of the ballroom or the arch. So what if it destabilizes the world and gets a lot of innocent people killed? It makes Trump feel special.

Friday, February 27, 2026

WE'LL NOW HAVE ANOTHER MEDIA OUTLET THAT'S STATE-RUN -- AND RUN BADLY

I keep thinking about a social media post that's making the rounds now:

The richest man owns X. The second and third richest men control Google. The fourth richest man owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The fifth richest man owns The Washington Post. And now the sixth richest could soon take over both Paramount and Warner Bros. See the problem here?

[image or embed]

— Robert Reich (@rbreich.bsky.social) February 26, 2026 at 6:40 PM

Of course it's bad that the mega-rich have this kind of control over media platforms. But I see something else going on. X is a mess -- a sinkhole of Nazism and AI-generated porn. Google, which once seemed like a technological miracle, now forces users to swim through a cesspool of AI slop and ad-generated misdirection before it reluctantly offers up useful search results. Facebook, which used to be the world's town square, is now strictly for grandparents and slop producers. The Washington Post's owner has destroyed the credibility of its opinion section and has now eviscerated its news side. And Paramount is a struggling second-tier studio.

So while it's obviously bad news that Paramount Skydance -- bankrolled by tech multi-billionaire Larry Ellison and run by his son David, both of whom are Donald Trump allies -- has won the bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery, I wonder whether it will lead to the Orbanesque nightmare for civil society that the Ellisons and Trump clearly want.

The deal will give David Ellison control of CNN, and Bari Weiss says he's promised to hand over to her. That's bad. Or is it? A couple of months ago, Ellison handed CBS News to Weiss with the understanding that she would fascify it, but she's not doing a very good job. She's earned negative headlines for holding up stories critical of the Trump administration -- stories that eventually aired. She drove Anderson Cooper to quit 60 Minutes -- and hasn't replaced him with a famous name from right-wing media. Her genius programming moves include a poorly received town hall with Charlie Kirk's much-mocked widow and the elevation of the lightweight Tony Dokoupil to the job of CBS Evening News anchor, where he's mired in third place in the ratings, well behind ABC and NBC. Meanwhile, CBS continues to run some decent stories, including stories that don't make Trump and Republicans look good.

I would be very worried if David Ellison were about to hand CNN over to an ideologue who was also a seasoned television pro, the way Rupert Murdoch brought in Roger Ailes to run Fox News thirty years ago. But he's about to hand it to Bari Weiss, who's skilled at buttering up rich people in order to line her own pockets, but not much else.

Obviously, the Trump regime is running a play from the Viktor Orban playbook. But if Bari Weiss is by far the most important figure in this pro-regime media consolidation, it won't go very well.

Thursday, February 26, 2026

THEY THINK THE PEOPLE THEY HATE ARE EVIL. MAKING THEM CRIMINALS CONFIRMS THEIR BELIEF.

SB 244, a bill that recently became law in Kansas when the Republican-dominated legislature overturned Democratic governor Laura Kelly's veto, prohibits trans people's use of bathrooms conforming to their gender, with a cruel mechanism of enforcement. Erin Reed tells us:
... the law bans transgender people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity in public buildings and creates a bathroom bounty hunter system allowing citizens to sue transgender people they encounter in restrooms for at least $1,000 in damages, including potentially in private restrooms.
But it also makes transgender Kansans' driver's licenses invalid -- immediately:
... transgender people across Kansas are reporting receiving letters from the Kansas Division of Vehicles stating that they must surrender their driver's licenses and that their current credentials will be considered invalid upon the law's publication in the Kansas Register on Thursday. Should any transgender person be caught driving without a valid license, they could face a class B misdemeanor carrying up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine....

The letter ... warns that upon the law's publication in the Kansas Register on Thursday, February 26, current credentials for affected individuals "will no longer be valid." The Legislature, the letter notes, "did not include a grace period for updating credentials," and anyone operating a vehicle without a valid credential "may be subject to additional penalties." Those whose gender marker does not match their sex assigned at birth are directed to surrender their current credential to the Division of Vehicles for reissuance.
This law could have had a grace period -- "The bill takes effect immediately upon publication in the Kansas Register rather than the standard July 1 effective date," Reed writes -- but sadistic Kansas Republicans clearly didn't want that. Republicans hate their political and cultural enemies and believe they're evil and demonic. They like to demonstrate that by suddenly criminalizing lawful behavior on the part of the people they don't like, then making it difficult or impossible for these formerly law-abiding people to remain in compliance with the law.

What Republicans in Kansas did to trans drivers reminds me of the way the Trump administration has withdrawn Temporary Protected Status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, who are then instantly recast as "illegal aliens" subject to arrest, incarceration, and deportation.

I also see this thinking in the SAVE America Act, which will disenfranchise legal voters who lack the correct documentation, and criminalizes what is now lawful behavior:
It establishes criminal penalties for officials who register an applicant who fails to present documentary proof of citizenship, even if that applicant is in fact a U.S. citizen. The bill also authorizes private individuals to sue election officials under the same circumstances.
And, like the Kansas law, it's meant to be implemented suddenly:
Despite the administrative difficulty of implementation, the SAVE America Act prioritizes expediency over precision. The act becomes effective on the date of enactment, giving states no time to adjust processes.... Further, the SAVE America Act offers no funding to states to assist with implementation costs.
They're trying to turn law-abiding voters and election officials into criminals.

I think we'll see something similar if, as I've long predicted, the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration and ends birthright citizenship. If the Court rules that birth in the United States doesn't confer citizenship on certain categories of babies (e.g., those born to undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers), the ruling will come while Donald Trump is president and Stephen Miller is effectively prime minister -- do you think anything will prevent them from trying to apply it retroactively? If SCOTUS sides with Trump, I expect the regime to begin the denaturalizations swiftly -- maybe before the midterms. It will be chaos, but it will help Republicans at the polls and redefine a large class of people as less than American simply because of the circumstances of their birth in America. To GOP voters, this will reinforce the belief that these Americans are evil.

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

TRUMP'S BASE WANTS HATE, NOT POLICY

The media was surprised last night when President Trump delivered a State of the Union address of record length but highlighted very few policy proposals. Katie Rogers of The New York Times wrote:
In his State of the Union address, President Trump didn’t bother to introduce a raft of new policies — unusual in a midterm election year with control of Congress on the line.
NPR's Domenico Montanaro told us:
There was no legislative agenda.

State of the Union addresses can sometimes descend into laundry lists of things the president wants Congress to accomplish.

Not this speech.

There were only about half a dozen specific things Trump asked Congress to do....
Punchbowl News said:
... overall, Trump’s speech was notably devoid of policy heft. Compare this to a State of the Union from Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and you find a truly stunning difference.
But that's because the speech was aimed exclusively at the Trump/GOP voter base. That base -- the last people in America who still admire and respect Trump -- doesn't want the president and Congress to pass a bunch of laws. The people in the base want Trump to make them feel good, partly through simple-mided flag-waving patriotism, but mostly through endless Democrat-bashing. Like the rest of us, they've stopped expecting the political system to improve our lives. But they're content if Trump hurts the people they want to see hurt, demeans the people they want to see demeaned, and declares that America is strictly Republican.

That's why the same polling outfit that recently told us Trump has a 36% job approval rating and a 63% disapproval rating found that his speech went over well with the audience that watched it, which was disproportionately Republican:
President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address drew largely positive marks from a heavily Republican audience, according to a CNN poll conducted by SSRS....

Nearly two-thirds of speech-watchers said they had at least a somewhat positive reaction to Trump’s speech, with a smaller 38% offering a very positive response....

Good marks from speech-watchers are typical for presidential addresses to Congress, which tend to attract generally friendly audiences that disproportionately align with presidents’ own parties....

The pool of people who watched Trump speak on Tuesday was about 13 percentage points more Republican than the general public.
Trump began the speech with Power of Positive Thinking wishcasting:
Our country is winning again. In fact, we're winning so much that we really don't know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we're winning too much. We can't take it anymore. We're not used to winning in our country until you came along, we're just always losing. But now we're winning too much. And I say, no, no, no, you're going to win again. You're going to win big. You're going to win bigger than ever.
This was addressed to Republican voters, the only people who actually find it plausible.

Trump segued to the awards-dinner part of the speech -- the U.S. Olympic men's hockey team, a couple of newly minted Medal of Honor recipients. And then the rest of the speech was Democrat-bashing interleaved with culture-war sob stories, which Trump recounted with lip-licking relish.

really remarkable how trump seems to relish sharing this lurid stories about the terrible pain people have experienced, and he does it exclusively to score some partisan points

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) February 24, 2026 at 10:21 PM

That's what Republican voters think his job is. That's what they think his job should be: inducing "liberal tears" while they and others are encouraged to hate Democrats even more. And that's what they'll expect J.D. Vance's job to be when they nominate him in 2028. (If he wins, he'll give them what they want. He likes hating and he likes stirring up hate. That's why he's leading in the GOP primary polls by nearly 30 points.)

Legislation? Who needs it? Republicans want a president who talks like this:
... these people are crazy. I'm telling them they're crazy.

Amazing. Boy oh boy.

We're lucky we have a country. With people like this - Democrats are destroying our country. But we've stopped it just in the nick of time, didn't we?
They want him to talk like that about Democrats and they want him to brutalize (or at least repress) people they associate with Democrats, particularly immigrants and people who protest on their behalf. They want his stories to make them even angrier at the people they hate, which is why they're not interested in anyone's fact-checks. They want Trump's stories to strain credulity, because their level of hatred requires enemies of superhuman monstrousness. Last night Trump said:
Under Biden and his corrupt partners in Congress and beyond, it reached a breaking point with the Green New Scam, open borders for everyone — they poured in by the millions and millions from prisons, from mental institutions, they were murderers — 11,888 murders — they came into our country, you allowed that to happen.
They don't want to be told that the truth about the 11,888 (or 13,000 or whichever number Trump is using on a given day):
... those statistics are about noncitizens who entered the country under any administration, including Trump’s; were convicted of a crime at some point, usually in the US after their arrival; and are now living in the US while being listed on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “non-detained docket” — where some have been listed for years, including while Trump was president [in his first term], because their country of citizenship won’t let the US deport them back there. Second, that ICE “non-detained” list includes people who are still serving jail and prison sentences for their crimes; they are on the list because they are not being held in immigration detention in particular.
They want Trump to tell them that the brutality of the people they hate is unspeakable, just the way they want Kristi Noem to tell them the people they've detained include at least one cannibal:

Kristi Noem lied about an immigrant being a cannibal. Of course it was all made up nonsense. Normal people didn’t believe it, just like we didn’t believe Haitians were eating pets. This is part of dehumanization of immigrants playbook. Fear and hate is the point.

[image or embed]

— Christopher Webb (@cwebbonline.com) February 24, 2026 at 11:02 AM

This is what they want government to do. They want the sheer pleasure of hating and they want to believe that the people thay hate are being hurt. Affordability can wait. Anything that's not related to hate is of secondary importance.