Look, I’m a YIMBY person who lives on the Cape, and I want the Cape to embrace more housing. But 1) Barnstable is not a representative county because it contains Hyannis. And 2) no one here wants the Cape to resemble Rehoboth Beach. That’s a hard pass. Even I think that would mean too much loss of green space.
I agree. I think Hyannis has done a great job with that, and I’m glad so many counties are getting connected to the new sewer lines. My comment was directed at Matt’s sort of glib take that change happens and lots of people are fine with those outcomes. And that might be the case, but I’m pretty certain that zoning deregulations that would result in certain areas here being much more developed would be a nonstarter. Because the tony nature of the place is what draws people here. And not just “the rich”. Plenty of middle class really care about the green spaces here.
“The moral of the story is that for all the ink that gets spilled on hot-button political disputes, the single most underrated thing in politics is getting the technical aspects of macroeconomic policy right.” This is one of my core beliefs and frameworks for understanding the world. For example, I also think that the great financial crisis of 2008 was due to monetary policy mistakes, but lack of understanding of this point led to a widespread loss of faith in capitalism. This in turn led to a lot of crazy economic policies since then and in turn a widespread sense of economic malaise today.
Exactly. I put substantial resources in trying to push NGDP level targeting, which I think would have prevented the sudden 2008 evaporation of liquidity in the mortgage-backed securities market from turning into 5 years of underemployment. (In this case, NGDPLT works by forcing inflation expectations up, which reduces the demand for money beyond what you can do by lowering short term interest rates which get stuck at zero). But, even though monetary policy is thankfully not a culture war issue, you still can't actually do anything --- you run into a wall of academics and institutionalists who are committed to "fiddle with an interest rate target and hope for the best", and view NGDPLT as either too risky (institutionalists), lacking in formal modeling (academics), or stripping FOMC members of too much discretion (FOMC members).
One underrated long-lasting impact from this Grant alt history: as President, he very aggressively sought the consented annexation of Santo Domingo prior to the Panic of 1873, and the treaty to do so failed in the Senate. One can imagine a world in which Grant exits office with his political standing intact and the concept of peaceful union and absorption of other countries remained on the table thereafter. Instead, the whole episode was tied to an unpopular administration and as you said, fell victim to the racial politics of the reactionary period.
The source of the crisis is not the increased demand, but the failure to increase supply. The tech jobs are the result of agglomeration effects which at this point in time is basically a law/force of nature.
I am a clueless civilian, so can someone more knowledgeable than me game this out for me: what are our options for getting the Strait of Hormuz open and keeping it open, as opposed to the current on-again, off-again, “now we have a ceasefire, now we don’t” dickery? (I assume a ground invasion of Iran is off the table for logistical and political reasons.)
There's an old rule of thumb in intelligence which is: threat=intent+capability.
So, to eliminate the threat to shipping in the SoH requires setting either intent or capability to zero. The latter, I don't think, is possible right now. We can limit what Iran can do somewhat, but not force the strait to be "open" in the sense that the threat is eliminated by eliminating Iran's capabilities such that there is true freedom of navigation. The strait is partly open, and theoretically we could be more aggressive and take more risks to protect transits to increase that, but that is costly (we don't have enough ships to do this for long), and risky (ships could get hit, more aircraft shot down, etc.). But it's probably not possible for us to completely eliminate Iran's ability to attack shipping in the strait, only diminish it.
So that leaves intent. And generally this falls into two buckets - either some kind of mutual agreement between the warring parties, or enough pressure on one party to force them to come to terms dictated by the other party. The MOU was supposed to be the former and didn't work out. Like Ukraine and Russia, the two sides are not remotely close to this being a possibility. So that leaves various means to pressure Iran to come to terms.
The problem with Iran is that they have a hostage, and they are willing to kill that hostage. The hostage is the various infrastructure of Iran's neighbors, including petroleum, water, etc. that is vital not only to the global economy, but also to the economies of Iran's neighbors. Iran has signaled its red lines on multiple occasions by attacking key infrastructure in its Arab neighbors. Given the realities of drone and missile warfare, it's extremely difficult to prevent that. This is Iran's strategy - they are essentially demanding US capitulation because of their ability to interdict the strait and potentially destroy vital infrastructure that would have severe impacts on the global economy - IOW, they are willing to kill the hostage.
The US could finish wrecking Iran, ensure that the government would collapse by destroying Iran's stored oil and gas reserves, and destroy key infrastructure such that Iran cannot export, and other targets. That would, eventually, be game over for them, but that could also collapse Iranian society generally. But we haven't done that because we understand that Iran will kill the hostage, and it's also high-risk and high-cost.
So I think what's happening now is probably the best middle course of action - the blockade. It pressures Iran economically, and this will grow over time. But it's far from guaranteed to get Iran to come to terms, and Iran could still decide to kill the hostage.
This is why Iran is playing hardball. They are down to their last card (and it's a strong one), and Trump has signaled weakness by caving earlier and agreeing to the MOU (and Iran was stupid for abrogating it). Iran thinks it has the upper hand and that he will fold, given he is obviously sensitive to the economy and his own popularity. And they are not wrong for thinking that. Trump is a well-known malignant narcissist.
So the situation is one of economic attrition and chicken - we are hoping that the blockade will force Iran to agree to better terms via economic pressure, and Iran is hoping to force us to agree to their terms via economic pressure and Trump's vanity. It's not at all clear to me how this will ultimately turn out. We could go back to kinetic action, but for that to have any major effect, we'd need to take on greater risks, and there's no guarantee that would be sufficient, and Iran could still decide to kill the hostage. Of course, if Iran does kill the hostage, then it's also game over for Iran - that is really a last resort for them.
I think the ideas being bandied about regarding landing Marines on the coast or trying to take Kharg Island should not be taken too seriously. That would be extremely high-risk and operationally stupid.
short of the regime collapsing for economic reasons (and I don't think that is likely short term)...it takes some taking and holding of territory....at least of the land along the Strait out to at least line of sight. Iran likely wouldn't have the ISR to hit moving targets in the Strait allowing it to be opened. The problem is that our forces on land would be relatively static targets so it would have to be accompanied by an extensive campaign to take out missile launchers and drones further inland. you're also talking about an extensive movement of ground forces to the region making clear what we are up to. We did have two MEFS in the region a couple months ago but not now.
I doubt we can with this regime (and maybe no other future regime). They have to want whatever we offer more than they want those tolls. The tolls can be pretty high. And honestly, econ theory indicates that the exporters will be the ones paying them. ie, The oil coming through the Strait is cheap to produce, so even a toll of $10 per barrel won't reduce supply. The supply just wants safe passage.
I think the real options are to support alternative means of shipping so that there’s minor benefit to closing the Strait for Iran and minor inconvenience for everyone else. Oil can have pipelines both across Saudi Arabia and UAE & Oman to new ports. Fertilizer and other bulk, trains through UAE & Oman to new ports.
In the near term, I think the only option is to give Iran what they want: Drop sanctions, release their money, pay reparations, don't complain about them charging tolls for passage and accept that they'll become a nuclear power soon.
We might be able to reduce some of that by paying more in reparations. In particular, we might be able to get them to agree not to make nukes, because they've now recognized that the strait is a more effective weapon anyway.
If you’re taking a regime change war off the table (which I don’t think is logistically impossible, especially with support from regional actors like the UAE) you’re pretty much left with establishing an extended blockade; make the economic situation more painful for the IRGC than it is for us. The latter appears to be the option we’re embracing now. The problem of course is that (a) this will take months or years, (b) will require ongoing deployments of US naval assets and expenditure of materiel, (c) will probably require substantial cooperation with Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan to prevent over land trade and (d) will probably cause substantial suffering for the Iranian people and the global economy in the interim.
I'm not in the biz, but I'm adjacent--I don't think there really are any practical options for forcing the operational opening of the Strait, other than wishing really, really hard.
Cheap, autonomous loitering munitions are a devil of a thing; moreover, you have to get it right every time, but they only have to get it right every once in a while. How far are you planning on pushing inland?
pushing inland to out to at least line of sight of the Strait will render it quite difficult for Iran to target moving targets in the Strait. I understand that there are pattern matching loitering munitions in Ukraine but I'm not aware of Iran having seekers with that kind of capability...that will change though. and I don't think China is going to provide DF21s and 26s. Targeting our folks in their more relatively static positions will be a real issue however. you could push further to the mountains and they probably can't realistically target ships in the Strait then...but that will take more manpower.
I'm not advocating for any of this now (though doing it in conjunction with the original air campaign may well have worked IMO). but if you're asking what options there are short of direct regime change 2003 style. that's what I see.
Good news for you on that point from 9FamEx28 (thanks to whomever suggested that abbreviation!): nieces and nephews are *not* within the scope of the nine familial exterminations.
The canon of books that play a role in Silicon Valley's understanding of the world is a blank shelf, the tech elite don't care for the humanities and certainly are not interested in reading books. Maybe Atlas Shrugged belongs on there, but even that has largely not been read by the relevant people.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian response, really gave me clarity about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.
Compare and contrast:
Afghans: “We resist the Taliban only as long as the Americans are here to support us, and the second the Americans go away, we will fold like a wet towel and let the Taliban take over. Our President will flee the country with a bag full of cash.”
Ukrainians: “We will fight TO THE DEATH against a much more powerful enemy, with zero guarantee of American (or any other) support, because this is OUR COUNTRY and we’ll be goddamned if we let the fucking Russians take over! Our President will stay in our capital, knowing that he’s risking capture/death, to keep our spirits up and to lead us. TO THE BARRICADES!”
The second country is the kind of country I want us to support, that deserves our support. The first country? Sorry not sorry, guys, we can’t want it (your freedom from the Taliban) more than you do. We should have left right after SEAL Team Six killed Bin Laden.
I mean, the Northern Alliance *did* fight the Taliban to the death in an extended civil war during the nineties. Obviously things changed and our assessment was flawed, but we did have some reason to believe that we were supporting a government that would one day have both the will and ability to keep the Taliban in check.
Agree about the three factions of the Dems. I'd call them "The Left", the "Progressive Mainline "(or just Mainline), and the "Mod Squad".
I'd just add that I think Nate Silver is wrong: there's no "abundance faction", "abundance" is a governing strategy that all sorts of people can embrace (Mamdani campaign on "food truck abundance") or reject, see enviro groups that think "keeping it in the ground" is more important than increasingly renewable deployment via a big permitting reform deal.
One thing about housing abundance is that with abundant housing people of reasonable means can afford multiple homes. If anyone here is familiar with places with very low housing costs it's very common for anyone with a decent job to have a vacation beach house, lake house, hunting cabin, etc.
That's one unsung benefit of housing abundance for the median (ok maybe somewhat above median) voter.
I'd be surprised if that's true. I think there's a long tradition in labor that the ability to own a "camp" or cabin in the woods for recreation should be part of the deal.
This may be a bit far afield, but this Peter Santenello Youtube video covers an old paper mill company town in Maine and they go into the whole camp thing a bit here:
I mean, the extra tax that NYC is pushing is literally on housing that was described by the opening post. And it is largely hated because of the perception of the owners, there.
In NYC, you do not pay the high residential property taxes levied in New Jersey, Westchester and Long Island in exchange for paying a ~3.75% resident income tax. People who own second homes in NYC are not paying the income tax, but still getting the low property tax rates, and that's the very specific issue here.
I'm going on a limb and saying most of the folks waving pitch forks aren't even remotely this nuanced. They legit just think they can keep a movement going by yelling about the billionaires.
Yeah, seems like we're thinking of different things here. IMO, the NYC thing is more about the fact that those homes are 1) taking up a house other families could be using year round and 2) owned by rich people and jet setters that aren't working class. I was more thinking more about modest camp/cabin type second homes similar to what BronxZooCobra mentioned. I guess maybe an important distinction is that this type of home often isn't even suitable for normal year-round living.
In the video I linked, Santenello mentioned his wife is from Ukraine and in Soviet times it was very common for workers there to have camps they'd go to in the summer like the one in the video.
Unless you are going to have public controlled housing, then building more will absolutely result in more people owning multiple places. There is no real avoiding that. And with the example above basically being people having vacation homes, I'm at a loss to see how that is comparable to cabins in the woods.
I think this is going to be really regional. Yes, it's unpopular in Manhattan. Probably more popular in, I don't know, Arkansas? In Indiana, many people of normal means had a second house on a lake somewhere in the state. It wasn't a fancy house, usually, and no one screamed that you were using up all the housing.
Right, cars are an equivalent. Nobody thinks it's outrageous for someone to have 2 or even 5 cars (yes, 5 means they're rich, but it's not morally offensive) because we have car abundance.
The only places that people are screaming about this need, though, are absolutely places that would be fancy vacation homes for people.
Though, I also question your example of Arkansas? Googling says it, in fact, does have a housing shortage? Even Indiana supposedly does. With a specific carveout that it is a crunch on low income (read: below market rate) housing. If you don't have a way to reduce the market rate, then housing abundance is actually not doing much to address this, at the moment.
On Afghanistan and Biden: I think Biden probably made some tactical mistakes, but I think his true failure was...marketing. Biden insisted we wont have a Saigon moment in Kabul. I get why he said that but we did have a Saigon moment in Kabul. Biden should have been blunter: yes maybe we'll have to leave like we did in Vietnam, but that just proves why we need to get out as soon as possible. I think the fact that Afghanistan is more peaceful now after we left is case in point in how terrible our performance was; if the Taliban can generate better law and order and more taxes than us then we deserved to lose. That isn't to say Afghanistan is BETTER OFF now than it was (it isn't), but our nation building efforts were a dismal failure and nothing was going to fix that.
I agree with Matt that where Biden failed was compromising with the DSA/Bernie wing instead of fighting and winning. Biden made several politically expedient short term choices which appeased the Berniecrat faction, and got zero long term benefit from it. When Biden was trying to keep Israel from acting out, but supporting them after the dreadful 10/7 attacks he got no favors from the Berniecrats whom he spent 4 years appeasing. The Berniecrats still stabbed him in the back (the voters, I should say, not Bernie himself ironically) when it came time for him to run for re-election. The same thinking led to Kamala Harris getting the VP nod.
The Democratic establishment has failed. I think Chuck Schumer has done a better job than most of the Berniecrats think, but what Schumer, Biden, Hillary and (if we're being honest): Obama and Pelosi failed to grasp is that they've allowed the Democratic Party to become too Progressive, and tarnished their brand. That is a collective failure since 2012. That needs to change.
On your main point, I agree - Biden set expectations and incontrovertibly failed to meet them. Matt thinks the media should have given him a mulligan, but the media would never do that with any President. And I think it's safe to say that if Trump had won the election and the exact same thing happened, Matt and many others would not be giving Trump that mulligan.
But on the rest, Afghanistan is not "peaceful," and what peace there is comes from brutality and oppression.
The way I think about it: the Dem leader responded to the bitter split and 2016 and the shock of Trump winning by agreeing to give the left a lot of what they wanted on policy and cultural positions while keeping the same leaders in charge. Hence Biden implementing a Warrenish economic policy and prioritizing Climate rather than the moderate politics he had long championed in the Senate and as VP. The result was a sort of split the baby approach that made nobody happy. People on the left are mad because they (correctly!) feel they never got their turn at the wheel while guys like Yglesias (correctly!) point out that progressive economic and cultural positions are just really unpopular and failed politically (the IRA and "anti-monopoly" positions didn't get Gen Zers and guys with beards and trucks to vote Dem in 2024 etc)
Thought 1: the reason why Biden felt the need to accommodate Bernie in 2020 at all is because Hillary lost in the first place, and she even more foolishly pivoted left in 2016 to beat Bernie. Had Obama not forced HRC down our throats and had HRC not ran such a bad campaign Biden’s accommodations wouldn’t have happened or been necessary
Thought 2: the pivot left started when Obama was President
Biden’s term didn’t happen in a vacuum, and Biden had many of his own correct insights too.
Agree Dems as a party started moving left during Obama's second term but the idea Obama "forced Hillary down anyone's throats" doesn't hold up at all. For better or worse Dem Party actors across the board largely backed her and it's not his or her fault that Bernie just failed to get enough people to vote for him. That's on him (and same with his failure in the 2020 cycle).
I think you greatly underestimate Obama’s role in pushing her across the finish line. She was his chosen heir, he cleared the field for her. Matt has mentioned how many leaders were upset that she was pushed forward. Biden was also clearly sidelined
There was never a "clearing of the field", there wasn't any diabolical conspiracy of "rigging", a bunch of other non-Bernie candidates ran against her they just failed to pick up any real support from voters. Bernie got a lot of votes, but never enough to give him a actual change of winning. People lots of lots of people voted for HRC. That's the McGovern-Fraser system in action. As Albert Barese would say "I dunno what ta tell ya'"
This to me is silly. We know many candidates chose not to run because Hillary seemed inevitable. Obama leaned on Biden not to run. I did not say it was rigged or a conspiracy. Just that Obama did work to clear the field and CHOSE Hillary. You can choose to ignore that but it’s a fact
This is problem, people often poll well until they run and they become "just another politician" and the partisanship effects kick in, had Bernie ever become the nominee or president same thing would have happened to him.
I wish all these issues polls, in addition to tracking simple up/down on various topics, gave us some barometer of how much voters actually cared about them. Because I am 99% certain that if Mary Peltola ran a campaign centered on cracking down on tax evasion and lead abatement most voters would think, "that's nice, and I agree with you I guess, but I also just kinda don't care, so why do you keep bringing it up?"
The things that really do move votes are even less well liked by progressives. The thing is you do the best you can to move the ball downfield, even if it's just a first down and not a touchdown, at least you moved forward and didn't turn the ball over.
This is my biggest issue - like, yes, these are popular issues, but they're not vote moving issues, which is why they're popular.
A national minimum wage hike to $12 while a positive largely for poor people in red states is not going to get people out to vote...or get people to change their vote. This is my basic issue w/ the whole Searchlight/WelcomePAC/etc. bucket of ideas.
Some of them are pretty good. None of them will make somebody who is going to lose an election win an election and most importantly, if they become the limiter on Democratic aspirations as these sort of things tend to do, it's just going to lead to further backlash.
Like, sorry, a 12-week abortion guarantee while polling well is going to make nobody actually happy in the coalition except probably just Pelota and Turek and even Alaska is libertarian enough she could probably just have the normal Democratic view on this and be fine in Alaska.
Even further, the actual reality is the Contract w/ America or the 6 for '06 didn't matter. I forget the exact number, but I think it was only around half of voters who could even name a single thing off the Contract w/ America in '94.
The GOP won big in '94 because it was the 1st Democratic President in over a decade so a bunch of Congresspeople who'd survived for decades as a result of never having to vote for Democratic policies finally had to do so, etc.
Somehow, the take is always "No, don't run on these things that poll well, run on 'Abolish Capitalism' and screaming obscenities at Republicans with spit coming out of your mouth because that will 'activate the Democratic base.'"
Democrats lost in '94 because Democrats tried to run too far / too fast on healthcare reform and because realignment was coming soon to a southern theater near you.
When did Bill Clinton recover? WHEN HE TRIANGULATED! Clear and convincing evidence that the Third Way is the best way, and one reason Bill Clinton ranks among my absolute most favorite presidents.
I remember around 1993/1994, there were infomercials for a Bill Clinton backwards watch whose hands moved backwards as a joke for how Clinton couldn't get anything passed in Congress. I'm basing this on childhood memories, but the commercials didn't even come off as particularly conservative or reactionary, just mocking. The economic boom years people associate with Clinton and the late 90s hadn't occurred yet by the '94 midterms.
Was it a joke about how Clinton couldn't get anything passed in Congress or was it a joke about the retroactive tax increase? (I can remember comedians making jokes about wishing they could change their vote retroactively and stuff like that.) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-reform-act-of-1993.asp
This version is rather vague on what "running backwards" means. There's another version that is explicitly about "offending liberals," but I don't remember seeing that version on TV:
Zoinks! I don't remember those ads, despite being in college by then and watching lots of basic cable, where I'd expect ads like that to have played. ($29.95 in 1994 would also be about $68.41 today according to the BLS inflation calculator.)
I have no idea why this is embedded so deeply in my memory. I think I saw it once while on vacation in fourth grade and figured there must be a joke in there I just didn't know enough to get. The joke seems rather half-baked for a watch that cost $68 and would probably break by 1996, but maybe making it too obvious would have seemed too partisan.
As a resident of CT's 1st district, and a Luke Bronin voter, the entire race was fascinating because of what arguments weren't made.
The race was remarkably non-ideological, there were almost no public policy fights or disagreements. The impetus for the challenge was Larson's age, and the fact that he was clearly unwell, having a partial seizure on the house floor.
Larson helped get Jillian Gilchrest on the ballot, hoping that she'd siphon off votes from anti-establishment voters. She seemed to try to make ideological critiques, but had basically no funding. She was the only one who seemed to take a strong anti-Israel position, while Larson and Bronin were relatively silent on that issue. But Larson was one of the 93 House Democrats who voted for Israel funding. Her message never broke through, and she never raised much money.
Almost all of Larson's ads were attacking Luke Bronin, claiming that he was corrupt because he raised money for his campaign from wealthy people. I don't think those attacks landed, since people could obviously tell that Larson also raised money to pay for those attack ads. Bronin's ads were mostly him defending himself, and small attacks on Larson saying it as time for a change, and criticizing Larson for taking corporate pac money (while saying Larson is a good man).
great answer on AFG.
Look, I’m a YIMBY person who lives on the Cape, and I want the Cape to embrace more housing. But 1) Barnstable is not a representative county because it contains Hyannis. And 2) no one here wants the Cape to resemble Rehoboth Beach. That’s a hard pass. Even I think that would mean too much loss of green space.
Building more housing doesn't need to come with any net loss of greenspace. Infill density really works!
I agree. I think Hyannis has done a great job with that, and I’m glad so many counties are getting connected to the new sewer lines. My comment was directed at Matt’s sort of glib take that change happens and lots of people are fine with those outcomes. And that might be the case, but I’m pretty certain that zoning deregulations that would result in certain areas here being much more developed would be a nonstarter. Because the tony nature of the place is what draws people here. And not just “the rich”. Plenty of middle class really care about the green spaces here.
“Expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing” - I think that 2 trillion dollars in spend should be enough for anyone!
Matt’s Afghanistan take has always been one of his best.
“The moral of the story is that for all the ink that gets spilled on hot-button political disputes, the single most underrated thing in politics is getting the technical aspects of macroeconomic policy right.” This is one of my core beliefs and frameworks for understanding the world. For example, I also think that the great financial crisis of 2008 was due to monetary policy mistakes, but lack of understanding of this point led to a widespread loss of faith in capitalism. This in turn led to a lot of crazy economic policies since then and in turn a widespread sense of economic malaise today.
Exactly. I put substantial resources in trying to push NGDP level targeting, which I think would have prevented the sudden 2008 evaporation of liquidity in the mortgage-backed securities market from turning into 5 years of underemployment. (In this case, NGDPLT works by forcing inflation expectations up, which reduces the demand for money beyond what you can do by lowering short term interest rates which get stuck at zero). But, even though monetary policy is thankfully not a culture war issue, you still can't actually do anything --- you run into a wall of academics and institutionalists who are committed to "fiddle with an interest rate target and hope for the best", and view NGDPLT as either too risky (institutionalists), lacking in formal modeling (academics), or stripping FOMC members of too much discretion (FOMC members).
-Ken
One underrated long-lasting impact from this Grant alt history: as President, he very aggressively sought the consented annexation of Santo Domingo prior to the Panic of 1873, and the treaty to do so failed in the Senate. One can imagine a world in which Grant exits office with his political standing intact and the concept of peaceful union and absorption of other countries remained on the table thereafter. Instead, the whole episode was tied to an unpopular administration and as you said, fell victim to the racial politics of the reactionary period.
The source of the crisis is not the increased demand, but the failure to increase supply. The tech jobs are the result of agglomeration effects which at this point in time is basically a law/force of nature.
Three phone app sucks.
1) This was supposed to be a reply
2) I can't copy the text
3) I get an error trying to delete it
🤬🤬🤬
Always Use The Web
I am a clueless civilian, so can someone more knowledgeable than me game this out for me: what are our options for getting the Strait of Hormuz open and keeping it open, as opposed to the current on-again, off-again, “now we have a ceasefire, now we don’t” dickery? (I assume a ground invasion of Iran is off the table for logistical and political reasons.)
There's an old rule of thumb in intelligence which is: threat=intent+capability.
So, to eliminate the threat to shipping in the SoH requires setting either intent or capability to zero. The latter, I don't think, is possible right now. We can limit what Iran can do somewhat, but not force the strait to be "open" in the sense that the threat is eliminated by eliminating Iran's capabilities such that there is true freedom of navigation. The strait is partly open, and theoretically we could be more aggressive and take more risks to protect transits to increase that, but that is costly (we don't have enough ships to do this for long), and risky (ships could get hit, more aircraft shot down, etc.). But it's probably not possible for us to completely eliminate Iran's ability to attack shipping in the strait, only diminish it.
So that leaves intent. And generally this falls into two buckets - either some kind of mutual agreement between the warring parties, or enough pressure on one party to force them to come to terms dictated by the other party. The MOU was supposed to be the former and didn't work out. Like Ukraine and Russia, the two sides are not remotely close to this being a possibility. So that leaves various means to pressure Iran to come to terms.
The problem with Iran is that they have a hostage, and they are willing to kill that hostage. The hostage is the various infrastructure of Iran's neighbors, including petroleum, water, etc. that is vital not only to the global economy, but also to the economies of Iran's neighbors. Iran has signaled its red lines on multiple occasions by attacking key infrastructure in its Arab neighbors. Given the realities of drone and missile warfare, it's extremely difficult to prevent that. This is Iran's strategy - they are essentially demanding US capitulation because of their ability to interdict the strait and potentially destroy vital infrastructure that would have severe impacts on the global economy - IOW, they are willing to kill the hostage.
The US could finish wrecking Iran, ensure that the government would collapse by destroying Iran's stored oil and gas reserves, and destroy key infrastructure such that Iran cannot export, and other targets. That would, eventually, be game over for them, but that could also collapse Iranian society generally. But we haven't done that because we understand that Iran will kill the hostage, and it's also high-risk and high-cost.
So I think what's happening now is probably the best middle course of action - the blockade. It pressures Iran economically, and this will grow over time. But it's far from guaranteed to get Iran to come to terms, and Iran could still decide to kill the hostage.
This is why Iran is playing hardball. They are down to their last card (and it's a strong one), and Trump has signaled weakness by caving earlier and agreeing to the MOU (and Iran was stupid for abrogating it). Iran thinks it has the upper hand and that he will fold, given he is obviously sensitive to the economy and his own popularity. And they are not wrong for thinking that. Trump is a well-known malignant narcissist.
So the situation is one of economic attrition and chicken - we are hoping that the blockade will force Iran to agree to better terms via economic pressure, and Iran is hoping to force us to agree to their terms via economic pressure and Trump's vanity. It's not at all clear to me how this will ultimately turn out. We could go back to kinetic action, but for that to have any major effect, we'd need to take on greater risks, and there's no guarantee that would be sufficient, and Iran could still decide to kill the hostage. Of course, if Iran does kill the hostage, then it's also game over for Iran - that is really a last resort for them.
I think the ideas being bandied about regarding landing Marines on the coast or trying to take Kharg Island should not be taken too seriously. That would be extremely high-risk and operationally stupid.
Offer the Iranians something they value more than the transit fees they're getting from the Strait.
My suggestion would be that if they reopen the strait, the US will dismantle their military bases in the Middle East.
Build a workaround to the strait of Hormuz. Easier said then done.
short of the regime collapsing for economic reasons (and I don't think that is likely short term)...it takes some taking and holding of territory....at least of the land along the Strait out to at least line of sight. Iran likely wouldn't have the ISR to hit moving targets in the Strait allowing it to be opened. The problem is that our forces on land would be relatively static targets so it would have to be accompanied by an extensive campaign to take out missile launchers and drones further inland. you're also talking about an extensive movement of ground forces to the region making clear what we are up to. We did have two MEFS in the region a couple months ago but not now.
I doubt we can with this regime (and maybe no other future regime). They have to want whatever we offer more than they want those tolls. The tolls can be pretty high. And honestly, econ theory indicates that the exporters will be the ones paying them. ie, The oil coming through the Strait is cheap to produce, so even a toll of $10 per barrel won't reduce supply. The supply just wants safe passage.
I think the real options are to support alternative means of shipping so that there’s minor benefit to closing the Strait for Iran and minor inconvenience for everyone else. Oil can have pipelines both across Saudi Arabia and UAE & Oman to new ports. Fertilizer and other bulk, trains through UAE & Oman to new ports.
In the near term, I think the only option is to give Iran what they want: Drop sanctions, release their money, pay reparations, don't complain about them charging tolls for passage and accept that they'll become a nuclear power soon.
We might be able to reduce some of that by paying more in reparations. In particular, we might be able to get them to agree not to make nukes, because they've now recognized that the strait is a more effective weapon anyway.
If you’re taking a regime change war off the table (which I don’t think is logistically impossible, especially with support from regional actors like the UAE) you’re pretty much left with establishing an extended blockade; make the economic situation more painful for the IRGC than it is for us. The latter appears to be the option we’re embracing now. The problem of course is that (a) this will take months or years, (b) will require ongoing deployments of US naval assets and expenditure of materiel, (c) will probably require substantial cooperation with Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan to prevent over land trade and (d) will probably cause substantial suffering for the Iranian people and the global economy in the interim.
This is what I was referencing when I said I think it is fair that the public would not support what we could do.
I'm not in the biz, but I'm adjacent--I don't think there really are any practical options for forcing the operational opening of the Strait, other than wishing really, really hard.
I think it's doable with 2 BCTs and 2-3 MEFs but the attrition after is a real issue.
Cheap, autonomous loitering munitions are a devil of a thing; moreover, you have to get it right every time, but they only have to get it right every once in a while. How far are you planning on pushing inland?
pushing inland to out to at least line of sight of the Strait will render it quite difficult for Iran to target moving targets in the Strait. I understand that there are pattern matching loitering munitions in Ukraine but I'm not aware of Iran having seekers with that kind of capability...that will change though. and I don't think China is going to provide DF21s and 26s. Targeting our folks in their more relatively static positions will be a real issue however. you could push further to the mountains and they probably can't realistically target ships in the Strait then...but that will take more manpower.
I'm not advocating for any of this now (though doing it in conjunction with the original air campaign may well have worked IMO). but if you're asking what options there are short of direct regime change 2003 style. that's what I see.
In my line of work, MEF = Mouse Embryonic Fibroblast
Marine Expeditionary Force, my friend.
Thanks!
We trade Trump and his family to Iran to keep the strait open?
[Googling to see if O. Henry's "The Ransom of Red Chief" has been translated into Farsi . . . .]
I’d be in favor of that (as long as we exclude Mary Trump, Donald’s niece from the deal; she’s a good person).
Good news for you on that point from 9FamEx28 (thanks to whomever suggested that abbreviation!): nieces and nephews are *not* within the scope of the nine familial exterminations.
Oh I was thinking him and his immediate spawn.
The canon of books that play a role in Silicon Valley's understanding of the world is a blank shelf, the tech elite don't care for the humanities and certainly are not interested in reading books. Maybe Atlas Shrugged belongs on there, but even that has largely not been read by the relevant people.
Not all books are written by humanities types.
Zero to One by Thiel is something I'd expect most SV tech founders and investors to have read.
No I think you misunderstand how illiterate and moronic this caste of people is
Once more, with feeling:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian response, really gave me clarity about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.
Compare and contrast:
Afghans: “We resist the Taliban only as long as the Americans are here to support us, and the second the Americans go away, we will fold like a wet towel and let the Taliban take over. Our President will flee the country with a bag full of cash.”
Ukrainians: “We will fight TO THE DEATH against a much more powerful enemy, with zero guarantee of American (or any other) support, because this is OUR COUNTRY and we’ll be goddamned if we let the fucking Russians take over! Our President will stay in our capital, knowing that he’s risking capture/death, to keep our spirits up and to lead us. TO THE BARRICADES!”
The second country is the kind of country I want us to support, that deserves our support. The first country? Sorry not sorry, guys, we can’t want it (your freedom from the Taliban) more than you do. We should have left right after SEAL Team Six killed Bin Laden.
I mean, the Northern Alliance *did* fight the Taliban to the death in an extended civil war during the nineties. Obviously things changed and our assessment was flawed, but we did have some reason to believe that we were supporting a government that would one day have both the will and ability to keep the Taliban in check.
Yes.
Sometimes, when you fight to the death, you die.
Agree about the three factions of the Dems. I'd call them "The Left", the "Progressive Mainline "(or just Mainline), and the "Mod Squad".
I'd just add that I think Nate Silver is wrong: there's no "abundance faction", "abundance" is a governing strategy that all sorts of people can embrace (Mamdani campaign on "food truck abundance") or reject, see enviro groups that think "keeping it in the ground" is more important than increasingly renewable deployment via a big permitting reform deal.
One thing about housing abundance is that with abundant housing people of reasonable means can afford multiple homes. If anyone here is familiar with places with very low housing costs it's very common for anyone with a decent job to have a vacation beach house, lake house, hunting cabin, etc.
That's one unsung benefit of housing abundance for the median (ok maybe somewhat above median) voter.
Isn't this something that many on the left is against?
I'd be surprised if that's true. I think there's a long tradition in labor that the ability to own a "camp" or cabin in the woods for recreation should be part of the deal.
This may be a bit far afield, but this Peter Santenello Youtube video covers an old paper mill company town in Maine and they go into the whole camp thing a bit here:
https://youtu.be/Di99Sg8oraM?t=1678
I mean, the extra tax that NYC is pushing is literally on housing that was described by the opening post. And it is largely hated because of the perception of the owners, there.
In NYC, you do not pay the high residential property taxes levied in New Jersey, Westchester and Long Island in exchange for paying a ~3.75% resident income tax. People who own second homes in NYC are not paying the income tax, but still getting the low property tax rates, and that's the very specific issue here.
I'm going on a limb and saying most of the folks waving pitch forks aren't even remotely this nuanced. They legit just think they can keep a movement going by yelling about the billionaires.
Yeah, seems like we're thinking of different things here. IMO, the NYC thing is more about the fact that those homes are 1) taking up a house other families could be using year round and 2) owned by rich people and jet setters that aren't working class. I was more thinking more about modest camp/cabin type second homes similar to what BronxZooCobra mentioned. I guess maybe an important distinction is that this type of home often isn't even suitable for normal year-round living.
In the video I linked, Santenello mentioned his wife is from Ukraine and in Soviet times it was very common for workers there to have camps they'd go to in the summer like the one in the video.
Unless you are going to have public controlled housing, then building more will absolutely result in more people owning multiple places. There is no real avoiding that. And with the example above basically being people having vacation homes, I'm at a loss to see how that is comparable to cabins in the woods.
I think this is going to be really regional. Yes, it's unpopular in Manhattan. Probably more popular in, I don't know, Arkansas? In Indiana, many people of normal means had a second house on a lake somewhere in the state. It wasn't a fancy house, usually, and no one screamed that you were using up all the housing.
If housing were abundant in Manhattan, it wouldn't be unpopular there.
Right, cars are an equivalent. Nobody thinks it's outrageous for someone to have 2 or even 5 cars (yes, 5 means they're rich, but it's not morally offensive) because we have car abundance.
This would hold more water if it wasn't much more popular from people outside of NYC.
The only places that people are screaming about this need, though, are absolutely places that would be fancy vacation homes for people.
Though, I also question your example of Arkansas? Googling says it, in fact, does have a housing shortage? Even Indiana supposedly does. With a specific carveout that it is a crunch on low income (read: below market rate) housing. If you don't have a way to reduce the market rate, then housing abundance is actually not doing much to address this, at the moment.
On Afghanistan and Biden: I think Biden probably made some tactical mistakes, but I think his true failure was...marketing. Biden insisted we wont have a Saigon moment in Kabul. I get why he said that but we did have a Saigon moment in Kabul. Biden should have been blunter: yes maybe we'll have to leave like we did in Vietnam, but that just proves why we need to get out as soon as possible. I think the fact that Afghanistan is more peaceful now after we left is case in point in how terrible our performance was; if the Taliban can generate better law and order and more taxes than us then we deserved to lose. That isn't to say Afghanistan is BETTER OFF now than it was (it isn't), but our nation building efforts were a dismal failure and nothing was going to fix that.
I agree with Matt that where Biden failed was compromising with the DSA/Bernie wing instead of fighting and winning. Biden made several politically expedient short term choices which appeased the Berniecrat faction, and got zero long term benefit from it. When Biden was trying to keep Israel from acting out, but supporting them after the dreadful 10/7 attacks he got no favors from the Berniecrats whom he spent 4 years appeasing. The Berniecrats still stabbed him in the back (the voters, I should say, not Bernie himself ironically) when it came time for him to run for re-election. The same thinking led to Kamala Harris getting the VP nod.
The Democratic establishment has failed. I think Chuck Schumer has done a better job than most of the Berniecrats think, but what Schumer, Biden, Hillary and (if we're being honest): Obama and Pelosi failed to grasp is that they've allowed the Democratic Party to become too Progressive, and tarnished their brand. That is a collective failure since 2012. That needs to change.
On your main point, I agree - Biden set expectations and incontrovertibly failed to meet them. Matt thinks the media should have given him a mulligan, but the media would never do that with any President. And I think it's safe to say that if Trump had won the election and the exact same thing happened, Matt and many others would not be giving Trump that mulligan.
But on the rest, Afghanistan is not "peaceful," and what peace there is comes from brutality and oppression.
The way I think about it: the Dem leader responded to the bitter split and 2016 and the shock of Trump winning by agreeing to give the left a lot of what they wanted on policy and cultural positions while keeping the same leaders in charge. Hence Biden implementing a Warrenish economic policy and prioritizing Climate rather than the moderate politics he had long championed in the Senate and as VP. The result was a sort of split the baby approach that made nobody happy. People on the left are mad because they (correctly!) feel they never got their turn at the wheel while guys like Yglesias (correctly!) point out that progressive economic and cultural positions are just really unpopular and failed politically (the IRA and "anti-monopoly" positions didn't get Gen Zers and guys with beards and trucks to vote Dem in 2024 etc)
2 thoughts
Thought 1: the reason why Biden felt the need to accommodate Bernie in 2020 at all is because Hillary lost in the first place, and she even more foolishly pivoted left in 2016 to beat Bernie. Had Obama not forced HRC down our throats and had HRC not ran such a bad campaign Biden’s accommodations wouldn’t have happened or been necessary
Thought 2: the pivot left started when Obama was President
Biden’s term didn’t happen in a vacuum, and Biden had many of his own correct insights too.
Agree Dems as a party started moving left during Obama's second term but the idea Obama "forced Hillary down anyone's throats" doesn't hold up at all. For better or worse Dem Party actors across the board largely backed her and it's not his or her fault that Bernie just failed to get enough people to vote for him. That's on him (and same with his failure in the 2020 cycle).
I think you greatly underestimate Obama’s role in pushing her across the finish line. She was his chosen heir, he cleared the field for her. Matt has mentioned how many leaders were upset that she was pushed forward. Biden was also clearly sidelined
There was never a "clearing of the field", there wasn't any diabolical conspiracy of "rigging", a bunch of other non-Bernie candidates ran against her they just failed to pick up any real support from voters. Bernie got a lot of votes, but never enough to give him a actual change of winning. People lots of lots of people voted for HRC. That's the McGovern-Fraser system in action. As Albert Barese would say "I dunno what ta tell ya'"
The only candidate who even made it to the primary was Martin O’Malley. Bernie benefited from the cleared field
This to me is silly. We know many candidates chose not to run because Hillary seemed inevitable. Obama leaned on Biden not to run. I did not say it was rigged or a conspiracy. Just that Obama did work to clear the field and CHOSE Hillary. You can choose to ignore that but it’s a fact
People forget that HRC was one of the most popular Democratic politicians in 2015. That's a big part of how she cleared the field early.
This is problem, people often poll well until they run and they become "just another politician" and the partisanship effects kick in, had Bernie ever become the nominee or president same thing would have happened to him.
It is part of the story. Not the only one
The monetary policy answer reminds me of one of my favorite SMBC comics: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-03-19
I wish all these issues polls, in addition to tracking simple up/down on various topics, gave us some barometer of how much voters actually cared about them. Because I am 99% certain that if Mary Peltola ran a campaign centered on cracking down on tax evasion and lead abatement most voters would think, "that's nice, and I agree with you I guess, but I also just kinda don't care, so why do you keep bringing it up?"
The things that really do move votes are even less well liked by progressives. The thing is you do the best you can to move the ball downfield, even if it's just a first down and not a touchdown, at least you moved forward and didn't turn the ball over.
It's like marajuana legalization - super popular, never moved a single vote (except for referenda)
This is my biggest issue - like, yes, these are popular issues, but they're not vote moving issues, which is why they're popular.
A national minimum wage hike to $12 while a positive largely for poor people in red states is not going to get people out to vote...or get people to change their vote. This is my basic issue w/ the whole Searchlight/WelcomePAC/etc. bucket of ideas.
Some of them are pretty good. None of them will make somebody who is going to lose an election win an election and most importantly, if they become the limiter on Democratic aspirations as these sort of things tend to do, it's just going to lead to further backlash.
Like, sorry, a 12-week abortion guarantee while polling well is going to make nobody actually happy in the coalition except probably just Pelota and Turek and even Alaska is libertarian enough she could probably just have the normal Democratic view on this and be fine in Alaska.
Even further, the actual reality is the Contract w/ America or the 6 for '06 didn't matter. I forget the exact number, but I think it was only around half of voters who could even name a single thing off the Contract w/ America in '94.
The GOP won big in '94 because it was the 1st Democratic President in over a decade so a bunch of Congresspeople who'd survived for decades as a result of never having to vote for Democratic policies finally had to do so, etc.
Somehow, the take is always "No, don't run on these things that poll well, run on 'Abolish Capitalism' and screaming obscenities at Republicans with spit coming out of your mouth because that will 'activate the Democratic base.'"
Democrats lost in '94 because Democrats tried to run too far / too fast on healthcare reform and because realignment was coming soon to a southern theater near you.
When did Bill Clinton recover? WHEN HE TRIANGULATED! Clear and convincing evidence that the Third Way is the best way, and one reason Bill Clinton ranks among my absolute most favorite presidents.
I remember around 1993/1994, there were infomercials for a Bill Clinton backwards watch whose hands moved backwards as a joke for how Clinton couldn't get anything passed in Congress. I'm basing this on childhood memories, but the commercials didn't even come off as particularly conservative or reactionary, just mocking. The economic boom years people associate with Clinton and the late 90s hadn't occurred yet by the '94 midterms.
Was it a joke about how Clinton couldn't get anything passed in Congress or was it a joke about the retroactive tax increase? (I can remember comedians making jokes about wishing they could change their vote retroactively and stuff like that.) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-reform-act-of-1993.asp
You can be the 15th person to see this upload of the original commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMRhTbkfiGY
This version is rather vague on what "running backwards" means. There's another version that is explicitly about "offending liberals," but I don't remember seeing that version on TV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_vpYHCfCJU&pp=ygUpYmlsbCBjbGludG9uIGJhY2t3YXJkcyB3YXRjaCBpbmZvcm1lcmNpYWw%3D
Zoinks! I don't remember those ads, despite being in college by then and watching lots of basic cable, where I'd expect ads like that to have played. ($29.95 in 1994 would also be about $68.41 today according to the BLS inflation calculator.)
I have no idea why this is embedded so deeply in my memory. I think I saw it once while on vacation in fourth grade and figured there must be a joke in there I just didn't know enough to get. The joke seems rather half-baked for a watch that cost $68 and would probably break by 1996, but maybe making it too obvious would have seemed too partisan.
As a resident of CT's 1st district, and a Luke Bronin voter, the entire race was fascinating because of what arguments weren't made.
The race was remarkably non-ideological, there were almost no public policy fights or disagreements. The impetus for the challenge was Larson's age, and the fact that he was clearly unwell, having a partial seizure on the house floor.
Larson helped get Jillian Gilchrest on the ballot, hoping that she'd siphon off votes from anti-establishment voters. She seemed to try to make ideological critiques, but had basically no funding. She was the only one who seemed to take a strong anti-Israel position, while Larson and Bronin were relatively silent on that issue. But Larson was one of the 93 House Democrats who voted for Israel funding. Her message never broke through, and she never raised much money.
Almost all of Larson's ads were attacking Luke Bronin, claiming that he was corrupt because he raised money for his campaign from wealthy people. I don't think those attacks landed, since people could obviously tell that Larson also raised money to pay for those attack ads. Bronin's ads were mostly him defending himself, and small attacks on Larson saying it as time for a change, and criticizing Larson for taking corporate pac money (while saying Larson is a good man).