There’s no non-partisan way to say this

I try to avoid nakedly partisan output, especially in this forum. I give my self a little more leeway on social media, but still try to remain within reason. And over my entire liftetime, the intellectual capability of the president has always been a target for insult (sometimes horrifically so) by the opposition party. But we have arrived, at some point in the preceding months or years depending on your vantage, at the arrival of a sitting President who genuinely appears to be limited in his ability to self-regulate.

A sundowning old man, addicted to AI slop, surrounded by supplicants and apparatchiks, with control over the US nuclear arsenal.

David Roberts (@volts.wtf) 2026-09-06T18:16:44.829Z

If you let the post play, it shows 7 posts over 10 minutes. The rapidity of posts is, I believe, relevant because it signals that it is unlikely to be the product of a staffer in charge of his social media. PR staff would, regardless of content, prefer that posts each have their own time at the top of the feed to generate attention. By firing off so many posts in rapid sequence, each post is buried by the subsequent. This is not professional PR.

As for the posts, it is precisely the kind of content that would generate a lot of interest from juveniles and those in cognitive decline. It’s the kind of slop, AI or otherwise, that gets a lot of attention from individuals with zero opportunity cost of time on Facebook. Read in conjunction with the all-caps posts of threats to ban trade with whole swaths of the globe and other similarly illegal executive actions, it’s just part of the evermounting evidence that the President is not in full control of his impulses. Putting aside what Thomas Schelling would say about fragility and faillings of madman theories of conflict, it’s brings up one of the most important reforms we can and should be pushing for in the next administration.

Age limits on representation.

Reliable, unbiased cognitive tests would be first-best, of course, but the problem there is a) failure is endogenous to the control of the branch administrering them, and b) extrication in the wake of a failure is the kind of stress test that our system does not seem up to at the moment. For all of it’s coarseness, counting days since the record of your birth is straightforward and relatively easy to enforce before being allowed on the ballot in the first place.

One of the realities of modern medicine is that our ability to preserve the body is likely to outpace our ability to preserve the mind at a level adequeate to the task of high representative office. At the same time, our abilitty to extricate and replace someone unfit to their duties in the public sector will likely always be limited relative to similar processes in the private market, where executive services will always be at will in any context where the executive is not themselves the owner.

From a public choice/political economy perspective, age limits will not be an easy legislative or constitutional feat. Representatives will always favor the status quo rules that helped them get their job and subsequently keep it. This is only made more complicated by the basic human optimism regarding our own current and future capacities. And perhaps the simplest obstruction is also the biggest: the reward for winning an election is the expected incumbent advantage in the next election. To limit the prospective future terms for any sitting official, in their current position or the one they aspire to, is to reduce the value of what they already earned, and nobody likes that.

In the face of all that, however, remains a simple truth. The citizens of the United States and the broader world are all made less safe by a sitting President whose self-control and capacity to understand complex contexts has waned well-beyond the threshold of reliable decision-making. That’s a cost big enough and bad enough, wrapped in all the risk aversion and loss-aversion who can possibly imagine, that it should at least have a chance to motivate real legislative action. At least a chance.

Anyway, happy Labor Day.

What is the price of obvious lying?

Pushing beyond the despair and doomerism of “Nothing matters”, the question has never been is there a price for lying in politics, but rather what is the price of lying in politics. Note that “in politics” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In day to day life, the price of lying is the threat to your reputation. A reputaton for being untrustworthy is always very costly in the long run. But politics, however, has different layers across which the price of lying is heterogeneous. And yes, there are contexts where that price can go negative.

Put simply, what is the cost here? Is Greg Bovino, head of US Border Patrol, worried about his reputation? Is he worried about future personal legal liability? Is he worried about maintaining cooperative alignment across the administration and within the ranks of the Border Patrol and ICE? There’s a saying in politics – the worst thing you can do is tell the truth at the wrong time. But that’s more relevant to “lying by omission”, about simply abstaining from speaking on a subject so that you are not forced to choose between lying and paying a high political cost. This is different. I’m picking on this one person in the administration because Alex Pretti was summarily executed in the street in cold blood by a thicket of federal agents for the apparent crime of being in attendance and trying to help a woman while she was being pepper sprayed, but it is the subsequent lying that I am concerned with here. It follows a pattern that continues to darkly fascinate me.

Q: "Was Alex Pretti armed when he was shot?"Bovino: "The investigation is going to uncover all those facts…I wasn't there wrestling that assaultive subject that was assaulting Border Patrol agents."

The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-01-25T19:35:37.806Z

Bovino: "When you choose to use your five-year-old child as a shield to evade law enforcement, that is a choice that someone makes…"

The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-01-25T19:21:48.924Z

Bovino shamelessly lies: "This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement"

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-24T19:14:18.742Z

Rather than simply “say nothing”, this administration has committed to the broad tactic of stating things that are factually, obviously untrue. That, more important, it is highly likely they know are untrue. That’s not something we’ve seen a lot of before. Politicians were known for being “slick” and “slippery”. For bending the truth, torturing the facts, or managing to fill entire press conferences without saying or committing to anything of substance. This administration, as I’ve said before, is different.

I see two likely explanations:

  1. The price of lying is zero because no one believes anything anymore. The truth is subjective and siloed.
  2. The price of lying is negative because constant and consistent commitment to the party can only be demonstrated by bearing the personal cost of telling obvious lies. In doing so you maintain the group, save yourself from being purged, and everyone in the group lives to fight another day. The net of which is a negative price for lying.

So what is it? Are we through the lol-nothing-matters looking glass, or are we witnessing an administration circle the wagons and solidify their committment to one another by blatantly lying on national television? I’m (perhaps obviously) of the belief that everything matters, that lying does have a cost, but the need for unity is so strong within this administration and it is, in fact, the lying that is holding it together. Until, of course, it doesn’t. Remember the most important lesson of The Folk Theorem – you can sustain cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, but only until you learn when the game is going to end. Then all bets are off.

Political Poverty is a Choice

Political drama was about to happen and then it didn’t. Across the country, deep and insightful thinkpieces were left unfinished, relegated to the folder for things writers hope will become future brilliance but definitely never will.

The Big Covid Stimulus Bill was about to fall short by a single vote, with Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) threatening to break against party lines. It was a disaster… until it wasn’t. A political catastrophe, evidence that the Democrats were a failed coalition once again humbled by their ruthless coordinated opposition… until it wasn’t.

So what was the source of this unforeseeable political miracle? Joe Biden’s long-running political strategy of asking people what they wanted, keeping promises, and not being a d*ck.

As much as I want to roll with three paragraphs of clever wordplay referencing stratagems and gambits, the obvious point to be made is that Biden has decades of political capital that the entire Democratic party is currently able to leverage. In contrast, the Republican Party is currently fronted by a Senator who has broken every political norm for short/medium run political gain, while bearing the brand of a career grifter who spent decades opting not to pay his contractors, employees, or lenders.

I’m not much for making forecasts or predictions, so here’s my predictive forecast for the Republican party: they don’t matter and won’t for years.

Make no mistake: their politics still matter a great deal. White ethno-nationalism has a real foothold in chunks of the electorate all over the country, evangelical Christians remains one of the most influential voting blocks, and the US system remains weighted towards the preferences of rural voters. Rather, what I mean is that the institution of the Republican Party no longer brings much to the political bargaining table. The party has spent down decades of political capital and no recourse to trust in their reputation to solve collective action problems. The bill has finally come due for their spendthrift and short-sighted culture. As much as it may hurt our sympathetic sensibilities, we owe it to them to let them learn from this experience and, after a few decades of trustworthy behavior and political saving, they should be able to pull their party up by their bootstraps.

In four years, two with control of all three branches, the GOP was never ever able to pass legislation as impactful on the US landscape as what the Democrats pulled off this week. The Republican party remains an efficient fundraising organizing and cultural brand for running a campaign, no doubt. There’s not going to be a third-party usurping of their status as one of the two dominant parties, at least not any time particularly soon. But as far as the legislative marketplace is concerned, the Republican party is dead broke.