Sunday’s Forum

FILED UNDER: Open Forum
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter and/or BlueSky.

Comments

  1. wr says:

    I’m just marveling at the negotiating prowess of Team Trump once JD is added to the real estate boys. Amazing technique he’s got — according to the VP, they entered negotiations by demanding the Iranians capitulate to their conditions, the Iranians declined the offer, and then Team USA couldn’t figure out what to do next, so they went home.

    The Art of the Deal!!!

    9
  2. Daryl says:

    @wr:
    Nothing VP Eyeliner negotiates will be as effective as the JCPOA was.
    Friggin’ idiots.

    7
  3. Michael Reynolds says:

    @wr:
    Do you think JD knows Trump is setting him up?

    2
  4. charontwo says:

    Here is an explanation of the significance and importance of Vance’s efforts to prop up Viktor Orban of Hungary.

    Fabio Sabatini

    The hidden meaning of Vance’s visit to Budapest — and why Hungary may decide Europe’s future

    […] Vance’s visit is not a routine electoral endorsement. It is a targeted intervention at the most fragile point of any competitive autocracy: the loyalty of coercive institutions when power begins to slip.

    […]
    Kasparov argues that today’s Hungary foreshadows the United States in November 2026. If Magyar wins and Orbán refuses to concede, the decisive factor will be the behavior of the security apparatus — the army and the police.

    What Hungarian security forces do today and tomorrow could anticipate how ICE and the U.S. National Guard might behave in November. As Kasparov puts it: “In such a situation, the people are at the mercy of the men with guns: the army and the police. It’s an ugly truth, but coming from Russia, I can tell you that this is often the final line separating democracy from dictatorship.”

    At present, no one knows how Hungarian security forces would behave if Orbán refused to accept the result. In sixteen years in power, the regime has never faced a situation requiring serious repression. There has been no contested electoral outcome, no mass mobilization requiring force, no illegal order to be carried out against Hungarian civilians. Orbán’s system has been designed precisely to avoid visible repression, relying instead on media control, institutional capture, systematic electoral manipulation, and the economic strangulation of opposition actors and hostile local governments.

    This is consistent with what political science describes as competitive authoritarianism: a regime that wins elections by distorting the playing field long before votes are cast, thereby avoiding the need to falsify — or overturn — the vote itself.

    It is the efficiency of this model — one that Trump is attempting to replicate in the United States — that explains Orbán’s longevity. Yet the model has a structural weakness: the loyalty of security institutions is never tested under real stress. It functions as long as only passive loyalty is required — executing routine orders in the absence of conflict. It is unclear whether it holds when active loyalty is required — executing illegal orders under conflict.

    If Orbán attempted to overturn the election, he would need men in uniform to do things they have never done before, on behalf of a government losing legitimacy in real time, without knowing in advance whether they will comply.

    Consider a scenario. It is Monday morning, April 13. Official results have confirmed a decisive victory for Tisza. Orbán has just issued a statement denouncing “widespread irregularities” and “foreign interference.” A Hungarian police unit commander — call him László, a fifty-year-old with two children, twenty years of service, and no known political affiliations — receives a call “from above.” He is ordered to mobilize his unit to disperse a demonstration of Tisza supporters gathering in Kossuth Square, in front of Parliament. The rules of engagement authorize rubber bullets and, if necessary, live ammunition.

    László has perhaps ninety seconds to decide. The decision is not purely moral. For a man with a family and a career, the strategic dimension weighs at least as heavily. The question he asks himself is: what will the other commanders receiving the same call right now do?

    If László believes others will comply, then compliance is rational: refusing alone means being punished alone — losing his pension, facing prison for insubordination — while the order is carried out anyway. If he believes others will refuse, then refusal is rational: the order will fail, no one will punish him, and he will stand on the right side of history the following day.

    The problem is that every commander is making the same calculation at the same moment. The collective outcome depends entirely on mutual expectations.

    This is a well-established result in social sciences. In the 1970s, sociologist Mark Granovetter showed that collective outcomes depend not on average preferences but on individual thresholds — the number of others who must act before one is willing to act. Small differences in threshold distributions can produce radically different outcomes.

    Etc., etc.

    8
  5. Daryl says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    Trump doesn’t know that Trump is setting him up

    5
  6. charontwo says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    J D Vance is aligned with Putin and Orban etc., with Trump not so much.

    ETA: I am sure Vance has studied Trump enough to have him well figured out.

    3
  7. Michael Reynolds says:

    Ezra Klein on cancel culture:

    The impulse to cut off those with whom we disagree reaches far beyond Piker or the Israel-Palestinian debate. It sits at the heart of cancellation as a political tactic. It relies on a belief in the power of gatekeepers that might have been true in an earlier age but no longer reflects the way attention is earned and held. Tucker Carlson was ejected from Fox News and grew stronger on X and YouTube. Nick Fuentes was banned from major social media platforms and gathered strength in the shadows. Trump went from being banned by every major social media platform to retaking the presidency.

    But it’s not just that cancellation has failed to silence those it targeted; it also weakened those who used it. The Democratic Party — and the progressive movement — was ill served by the belief that it could decide the boundaries of acceptable debate. In narrowing who it could talk to, it limited what it could hear and whom it could be heard by.

    It’s gratifying when mainstream pundits come around to where I was a decade ago. We need to stop telling people what words and phrases they can use, and engage them. When we try to constrain free speech we lose. When we engage we win.

    No more elitist academic jargon, no more neologisms, no more euphemisms, when we speak clearly and in language that can be understood without a special progressive’s glossary, we win. Why? Because for the most part we’re objectively right.

    4
  8. charontwo says:

    @Daryl:

    I think he does, ETTD, this is a recurring behavior of Trump.

  9. charontwo says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Do you think JD knows Trump is setting him up?

    Vance no, but for an example of someone too stupid to know he is being set up consider Pete Hegseth.

    1
  10. Daryl says:

    @charontwo:
    You’re giving both Trump and Vance too much credit.

  11. wr says:

    @Michael Reynolds: I assume that’s why he’s paying the NY Times so much to mention he “opposed” the war every time they print his name. Homer didn’t attach “wine dark” to “sea” or “shining” to “Achilles” as often…

    3
  12. Sleeping Dog says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    The felon was upfront with that, told the press the other day if the negotiations fail it’s on JD and if they succeed, he’s taking credit. Morons.

    3
  13. Kingdaddy says:

    From the NYT:

    On Saturday evening, as Vice President JD Vance took a podium in Pakistan and said no deal had been reached to end the war in Iran, President Trump was in Miami watching a mixed martial arts fight.

    Mr. Trump spent several hours orbited by Secretary of State Marco Rubio; a few of his children; some Ultimate Fighting Championship officials; Sergio Gor, the U.S. ambassador to India; the recording artist Vanilla Ice; Dan Bongino, the former deputy director of the F.B.I.; and the manosphere shepherd Joe Rogan.

    This is an entire galaxy of wrongness in two slim paragraphs.

    4
  14. drj says:

    With one brilliant stroke, Trump has made Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz completely irrelevant.

    Suck on that, you stupid libs.

    2
  15. Sleeping Dog says:
  16. Sleeping Dog says:

    @drj:
    @Sleeping Dog:

    Then what?

    What’s that about noses and faces?

    3
  17. Kathy says:

    @Sleeping Dog:
    @Sleeping Dog:

    Per the Taco Doctrine, American civilization should be destroyed tonight.

    4
  18. drj says:

    @Sleeping Dog:

    More details to be found in tomorrow’s NYT:

    “Donald J. Trump is Blockading the Strait of Hormuz the Right Way”

    By Ezra Klein

    2
  19. @Kingdaddy: I will say that Trump going to some UFC event while the US was negotiating with Iran is a chef’s kiss of symbolic perfection for the utterly unserious nature of this administration.

    11
  20. Scott says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Or an indication that an honest attempt at negotiation was never the goal.

    6
  21. Kathy says:

    @Scott:

    To begin with, given there was a 2 week ceasefire in place, one would expect talks to take like 5-7 days at least. Certainly more than one day. It’s not as if they’re haggling over something simple and routine.

    2
  22. Daryl says:

    @Kathy:
    The JCPOA took a year to negotiate. That, however, was the result of serious diplomacy. Not to mention being effective.

    4
  23. Daryl says:

    As I mentioned yesterday…$5+ for a gallon of premium.
    And to add insult to that injury, and contrary to the propaganda, I just paid taxes on my SS.
    Never did recieve my DOGE refund, nor my Tariffs dividend.
    F these guys.

    5
  24. gVOR10 says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Do you think JD knows Trump is setting him up?

    Of course he does. Vance is evil, not stupid. But what’s he gonna do about it? Trump has the power.

    2
  25. Mikey says:

    In any sane world, the level of incompetence and stupidity that led to the all-too-predictable failure of negotiations between the U. S. and Iran would be incomprehensible. Trump sent his real-estate lawyer and idiot son-in-law, along with the V. P. who has less charisma than a used dishrag, to Islamabad, while the Secretary of State–you know, the guy who supposedly leads the government organization that exists specifically to deal with foreign governments and leaders–can only be seen in pictures on milk cartons.

    Now, Trump is responding to Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by saying “OH YEAH? Well, I’m going to blockade the Strait of Hormuz TWICE AS HARD!”

    He also seems to think negotiations don’t matter because “we won,” which is news to pretty much anyone who thinks “winning” something means “actually having gained something from the effort.”

    3
  26. Michael Reynolds says:

    We have finally made an important impact on American culture. A mention on Jeopardy was nice, but SNL? Cool. Not funny, but fun for us anyway.

    4
  27. DK says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    We need to stop telling people what words and phrases they can use

    Very next breath…

    No more elitist academic jargon, no more neologisms, no more euphemisms

    LOL

    The problem with free speech absolution is that like most purist or extreme beliefs, it can’t hold up to the demands of real life.

    Most of these pompous free speech warriors don’t have the power of their convictions, so they keep showing their opposition to cancel culture is conditional: they want to be the deciding who and what gets canceled. Free speech absolitists are so high on their own supply they don’t even notice their own constant and obvious attempts to control speech they disfavor. So self-impressed they assume it doesn’t count when they do it.

    Boycotts are free speech. “Cancel culture” (in the way insufferably whiny modern American men use it) is in fact speech. Neologisms? Euphemisms? Academic jargon? Disassociation? Gatekeeping? Free speech, free speech, free speech, free spreech, free speech.

    Those who argue such speech is harmful and should be suppressed can press their position. But they cannot both do so and at the same time raise themselves up on a holier-than-though free speech pedestal.

    “You put your academic jargon out into the marketplace of ideas, I’ll try to stop you and out out my preferred rhetoric, and we’ll see who wins” is what real free speech warriors would say. But they don’t, because they’re not.

    Hasan Piker is an asshat. Dem voters have absolute free speech right to criticize him, boycott him, or try to persuade their politicians not to appear with him. If Ezra Klein doesn’t understand that, then he doesn’t understand what free speech is.

    It is also empirically false that Carlson has more power now than as a Fox News Pundit, that Fuentes has ever operated from the “shadows,” or that violating a social media platform’s TOS makes one a victim of cancel culture. If one must deploy fake facts to make an argument, it’s probably a weak argument.

    8
  28. DK says:

    P.S. Tucker Carlson lost his Fox News contract because his lies and lack of rudimentary journalistic standards finally cost his employer money. It had nothing to do with Bernie-style progressives, Hillary-style liberals, Biden-style Democrats, cancel culture, or anyone trying to suppress speech.

    Carlson’s regressive, Republican, pro-Trump employers decided one day Carlson was a terrible employee. People get fired every day for less than costing their employer a billion dollar lawsuit — they also victims of speech suppression? Please.

    Was I being “canceled” that time Meta decided my thirst traps were a bit too thirsty and temporarily disabled my Instagram account? Social media sites have rules and terms everyone agrees to when they sign up, including Fuentes and Trump. Millions of accounts have been deactivated for TOS violations several times lower than organizing a neo-Confederate rally where Nazis chanted “The Jews will not replace us!” or inciting fkng terror attack on Congress.

    This fake cancel culture narrative is so tired. But we knew from his cringe Charlie Kirk sanewashing that Klein was aiming to become the Ross Douthat of left-leaning NY Slimes pundits. Ick.

    4
  29. Michael Reynolds says:

    @DK:
    I don’t know who you’re debating with. I don’t recall saying I was a free speech absolutist. Nor did I remotely suggest Democrats don’t have a right to criticize. I do think they could try framing it in ways that don’t scream, ‘college kid who attended a seminar,’ or, ‘lawyer,’ or, ‘professor speaking jargon’ or ‘virtue performer slash grievance monger.’

    Let me be very clear on one thing, so clear even you will understand: until we are rid of Trump I don’t give a single fuck about anything but beating him and MAGA. I think we have a pretty good chance of doing that and I would really, really like Democrats not to blow it. And I have very little confidence that Democrats have the good sense to prioritize winning because Democrats – you in this case – would rather score supercilious points than face the truth that we have made mistakes we should correct and not repeat.

    You talk to the enemy to know the enemy so that you can defeat the enemy. But a great many Democrats lack the confidence or the ability to engage in open debate with humans outside of our silo. We are right on the issues. Most Americans are with us on the issues. But we suck at communication. There’s a reason we are still up just 5 points in the generic polls. No one – not even Democrats – likes Democrats. We need to face reality: we come off to the public like smug, elitist assholes.

    One more thing, my attorney (IIRC) friend. Unlike almost everyone here, I have a job that requires me to be able to communicate with children and teenagers and their associated adults. You write briefs, I write books, who do you think has a better handle on messaging the public?

    1
  30. DK says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    You write briefs, I write books, who do you think has a better handle on messaging the public?

    Are you Charles Dickens? Have you run successful political campaigns? Have you been elected to anything everywhere? I enjoy your contributions here, but other than that I’ve never heard of you.

    So sorry, but I’m not nearly as impressed with you as you are impressed with yourself. You’ve had far more than time than I’ve had to persuade Democrats. Unlike you, I never shouted “Fuck Joe Biden!” in the summer of 2024, as I’m vocally opposed to tossing Democrats of a certain age into the trash — because I value wisdom and experience over physical youth. That said, if you’ve been unsuccessful in teaching Dems how to message despite your decadeslong head start, outsized publishing presence, crackerjack comms skills, and intimate knowledge of the public pulse, that’s hardly a reason for me to replace my own judgment with yours.

    2
  31. EddieInCA says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    @DK:

    It’s not hard.

    If Dems focus on….
    1. Prices, Inflation, Costs
    2. Health Care, Health Affordability
    3. Trump is insane and he broke everything, including all of his promises. We will fix it.
    … they win 40+ seats in the house and possibly eke out the Senate.

    If Dems focus on…
    1. Climate Change
    2. Abortion
    3. LGBTQ rights
    4. Any number of other issues that the GOP will toss at them
    …they win 20 seats, and maybe two seats in the Senate.

    It’s not hard.

    5
  32. DK says:

    @EddieInCA: If this is accurate, sounds like Dems are on their way to a pretty nice midterm win.

  33. gVOR10 says:

    @Michael Reynolds: I agree that Ds should drop faculty lounge jargon, to the extent they use it, and should communicate better. But I don’t see that in Klein’s column. He’s complaining about a rabidly centrist organization, Third Way, wanting to cancel an “anti-Zionist” lefty streamer for being, in their view, anti-Semitic. You usually seem in favor of centrism and complain about lefties.

    (Could someone come up with a better term than “anti-Zionist” for people who have no problem with Jews, often are Jews, but hate Netanyahu and Likud?)

    And I have a complaint against Klein. While I agree with most of his column, this isn’t why there are no Joe Rogans on the Left. It’s basic psychology. We Ds don’t need to wear American flag tee shirts to feel patriotic, and having arrived at our beliefs rationally, don’t need to go to services daily to reinforce our faith. That said, I’ve waved an American flag at No Kings rallies. Symbols aren’t that important to us, but parallel with your argument, they are to people we’re trying to reach. We need to use those symbols.

    1
  34. DK says:

    Orbán out! And the opposition’s victory was too big for the “Rigged! Stop the steal!” shenanigans the far right telegraphed. Looks like opposition will win ~140 seats vs the incumbents’ ~60. Orbán conceded to the reality of his massive defeat.

    Terrible day for Putin, MAGA, illiberalism, and Putin’s puppets Trump and Vance. Great day for Europe, NATO, classical liberalism, and Ukraine. And really embarrassing for Vance, who spent the last week on vacation in Hungary, trying save Orbán while Americans suffered the costs of Trump’s Iran War loss. The slimy, sanctimonious Vance is truly the laziest, most unlikeable veep in a while.

    The new guy, Péter Magyar, is seen as a moderate conservative. He has been pro-EU and anti-Putin, but lukewarm on Ukraine aid. The EU seems to believe he can be persuaded.

    6
  35. Gavin says:

    The fun of all this is that before the war started, Iran had agreed to terms more stringent than the JCPOA, but Trumpus just couldn’t take the win.
    And so now he must take the L.
    Too bad, so sad.

    2
  36. Gustopher says:

    The NY Times has this little article headline:

    Someone Has to Be Happy. Why Not Lauren Sánchez Bezos?

    As half of an unfathomably powerful couple, Mrs. Sanchez Bezos seems to have influenced the uber-rich to stop apologizing, and start enjoying themselves.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/11/business/lauren-sanchez-bezos-jeff-bezos.html

    I haven’t read the article, having no NY Times subscription, because they publish the most amazing shit like this regularly, but I cannot imagine anything good coming out under that headline.

    Also, it’s nice that the ultra wealthy are willing to take on this burden of happiness, so the rest of us can carry on whittling pitchforks or whatever.

    Also, the picture. The terrible cosmetic surgery. The Trumpistan Lips. Good lord, how did this become a thing? She looks like she’s halfway through an evolution into something completely inhuman.

    I want to blame AI for this, somehow, but instead I will blame Animorphs — she looks like she’s the second image in the progression to some kind of animal, where you can’t quite tell what animal she is turning into.

    I suppose it brings up the question of whether Bezos married her for her looks, and if so, why?

    Maybe he was really into Animorphs. Like, really into Animorphs.

    3