The Weekly Sift

Yesterday I talked to friends who had recently relocated to a summer place in eastern Pennsylvania, where torrential rains have produced deadly flash floods. They came up from Florida, where a heat wave has pushed ocean temperatures into the mid-90s. Apocalyptic weather is pretty much everywhere this summer. You can’t get away from it.

In one of this week’s featured posts, I’ll argue that this summer could be a turning point in the political debate about climate change. Up until now, we have had our weather disasters one-by-one. Sure, there was a hurricane somewhere or a flood or a wildfire, and maybe it seemed unusual in one way or another. But fundamentally, in the perception of the average person, it was nothing new: There have always been hurricanes or floods or wildfires somewhere. You could argue that those disasters were becoming more frequent or more destructive, but in the end that claim would rely on somebody’s statistical analysis. And, face it, large chunks of the public have never trusted statistics.

But this summer is different. “Bad things didn’t used to happen this often” is a statistical claim. But “Bad things didn’t used to happen all at once” is something we can all verify through our own experience. It might change the national debate. That article should appear maybe around 10 EDT.

Another post will come before it. The big news in Congress this week was FBI Director Chris Wray testifying to the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Jim Jordan and the flying monkeys in the Republican majority treated us to a display of really wacko conspiracy theories. Apparently Wray, a lifelong Republican appointed by Trump, has turned the FBI into “an arm of the Democratic Party”.

This hearing was not such a major event in itself, but it gives me a chance to apply two ideas I’ve discussed on this blog before: How to judge conspiracy theories, and what the “Deep State” really is. That post is just about done and should be out shortly.

The weekly summary still has to cover the House’s abandonment of the bipartisan tradition of the National Defense Authorization Act, the Hollywood strike (which gives me a chance to promote a classic work of Marxist economics), the countdown towards Trump’s next indictments, a heart-rending IndyStar article about family annihilations, and a few other things. I’ll try to get that out by noon.

The last week in June always has an obvious news theme: It’s the final week of the Supreme Court’s term, so the news is dominated by a flurry of controversial decisions. Last year the Court went out with a bang, eliminating abortion rights, striking down a century-old gun control law, and blowing a big hole in the wall between Church and State. In each case, the boundaries of the decision were unclear; the logic of the majority invited future cases that could be even more consequential.

This year the Court also went out with a bang, but none of the decisions are likely to strike as live a wire as last year’s anti-abortion ruling. The targets of this year’s attacks — LGBTQ people, Blacks hoping to go to college, and young people drowning under student debt — may be outraged, but the vast mass of the electorate will probably shrug and move on. Most of the Court’s victims probably weren’t going to vote Republican anyway, so politically, what difference will it make?

So I decided to shift my coverage in a more abstract direction. Even if you are unaffected by the specific cases decided this week, the Court’s behavior should bother you, because it is systematically blowing through all the traditional restraints on its power. Aspects of the law that the general public considers arcane (like standing and precedent) are being cast aside. And new interpretative principles (like the major questions doctrine) are being instituted. The result is to give the Court’s conservative majority the power to intervene anywhere it wants and come to any conclusion it desires.

That’s a problem, and I’ll try to explain why in “The Court Unleashed”, which should be out between 9 and 10 EDT.

Reading the nearly 400 pages of the week’s three major decisions took up an inordinate amount of my time this week, so the weekly summary should be short. I’ll try to get it out by noon.

When the latest Trump indictment got unsealed Friday, I took it as a personal favor. Otherwise, we wouldn’t see it until tomorrow, when Trump makes his first court appearance. And since I’m planning not to do a Sift next week, it would be two weeks before I got a chance to comment.

So this week’s featured post is “The Mar-a-Lago Documents Indictment”. The indictment is getting plenty of coverage, so I assume you’ve already seen the pictures and heard the basics. The purpose of my article is to pull it all together, filter out the nonsensical Trump defenses and baseless speculations, and make a few personal observations based on my own experience (decades ago) of having a top-secret clearance. That should be out shortly.

The weekly summary has a few other things to cover: the smoke cloud that covered the Northeast earlier this week, the growing number of Republicans running for president, the Supreme Court’s surprising refusal to keep chipping away at the Voting Rights Act, the revolt of Kevin McCarthy’s right wing, the golf merger, and a few other things, leading up to an amusing article about where not to stop on your summer vacation. I’ll try to get that out by noon.

I got a late start this morning, so everything is likely to show up later in the day than usual.

The big news this week is the debt-ceiling deal, but it’s still too soon to say whether Congress will pass it without major changes, or at all. The weekly summary will discuss what we know and the deal’s prospects.

There’s also another Trump indictment looming. The special counsel’s investigation of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents seems to be winding up, and the possible charges are looking more serious than originally expected. Meanwhile, the leader of the Oath Keepers got sentenced to 18 years in prison for the seditious conspiracy he participated in on January 6. The open question is whether Jack Smith can trace that conspiracy all the way up to Trump.

Ron DeSantis is officially a presidential candidate now. He announced his candidacy on Twitter in an interview with Elon Musk. It’s a curious choice and the event was embarrassingly glitchy. Those two seem to me to deserve each other.

Ken Paxton got impeached. Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan got re-elected. Tina Turner died, and a bunch of other things happened that I’ll cover in the weekly summary. I hope to get that out by 1 EDT.

But the featured post isn’t about any of that. One of the head-shaking facets of our political system — which the DeSantis announcement and the debt-ceiling deal bring into focus — is that many of our most serious problems, the ones that have the biggest impact on Americans’ lives, aren’t being discussed at all.

This week’s featured post is the first of what I hope will be a series on these neglected issues. It will focus on the decline in Americans’ life expectancy over the last few years, and the decades-long trend of American life expectancy falling behind that of comparable countries. We often tell this story in terms of individual moral failure — bad diet, lack of exercise, etc. — but each of the major factors is rooted in political decisions that could be reversed, if we had the political will to do so.

I’ll try to get that out by 10.

One measure of how busy a week has been is how distant Tuesday’s news seems by the next Monday. Last Tuesday is when the E. Jean Carroll verdict was announced: The jury refused to say definitively that Trump had raped Carroll, but it did rule that he sexually assaulted her and then maliciously lied about her when she went public.

Seems like a while ago, doesn’t it?

Immediately after the verdict, this conventional wisdom seemed to be everywhere: Satisfying as it is to see that Trump’s lies don’t fly in a court of law, the verdict won’t actually mean anything politically. If anything, Trump’s personality cult will just double down on the Deep-State-persecution narrative and support him more than ever.

In this week’s first featured post, I’m going to challenge that view. The Carroll verdict might matter, even to dyed-in-the-wool Trumpists. But if you’re waiting for one of them to announce their re-evaluation of Trump on television, you’ll wait in vain. That’s not how sea changes happen on the Right. But they do happen sometimes. So in “Why the Carroll Verdict Might Matter”, I’ll describe how conservatives actually change their minds, and what you should be listening for. That’s ready to go and should be out shortly.

The second featured post concerns the Trump town hall that CNN aired Wednesday. I’ll let other people correct all the lies Trump told and lament how he mistreated the “nasty” moderator. (It’s amazing how many Trump lines sound like they could come from Gollum. Somebody needs to redub Trump clips with Gollum’s voice.) In “Normalizing Trump normalizes political violence” I’ll focus on his unapologetic embrace of January 6. Can we really debate a violent attempt to overturn an election as if it were an ordinary political issue? That should be out between 10 and 11 EDT.

The weekly summary will cover the end of Title 42 on the southern border, the start of Ukraine’s spring offensive, Turkey’s election, Elon bending his knee to Erdogan’s demands for censorship, and a few other things. That should appear sometime around noon.