Cromwell

For a man who demands unconditional loyalty while giving none himself, Trump has been remarkably tolerant of J.D.’s very public attempts to distance himself from the war. What’s going on here?

I’m speculating, of course, but I suspect that Trump is trying to send a message to his anti-war MAGA supporters through the back door that he is still one of them at heart. J.D.’s job in his administration, other than to reverse engineer his incoherent utterances into something that makes sense, is to keep the band from flying apart. That’s probably what he’s doing here, too.

It isn’t working, just as his attempts to keep the techno-aristocrats and the populists on the same page can’t succeed in the long run.

America has always been about change. Americans are used to having the newest and best of everything. Why, then, is there so much pessimism about the impacts of AI, which is potentially a new golden goose of productivity and profit?

Part of the answer is demographic change, of course; you can hardly expect a country that is largely run by and for the elderly to embrace revolution in the economy. But that is not the whole story; Gen Z dislikes AI as much as old reactionaries do. Why is that?

Because the events of the last few decades have shown that the federal government is incapable of responding quickly and appropriately to the issues that will be created by AI. Nobody compensated the losers from globalization and technological change after 2000, and Congress is hamstrung by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and its own rules, so why would anyone expect anything better this time around?

Change is needed to head off serious problems in the future. I will outline a number of revisions to the McConnell Project which do not require amendments to the Constitution and which, if enacted, would improve things dramatically in a series of posts over the next week.

The federal debt as a percentage of GDP was approximately 30 percent in 1980. Ronald Reagan argued that a big tax cut, combined with massive increases in defense spending, would not increase the debt, as increased economic growth and the elimination of waste and fraud would fill in the gap. He was wrong; the deficit exploded, and we have been living on borrowed money ever since.

In 2012, Governor Sam Brownback pushed a large tax cut through the Kansas Legislature. He maintained that the cut would pay for itself through economic growth. It didn’t; services were cut dramatically as a result; and the tax cut was repealed by Republicans a few years later.

In 2022, Liz Truss supported an enormous tax cut, which, according to her, would pay for itself. Markets didn’t agree; the value of the pound fell significantly; and Truss was forced to resign.

Today, DeSantis and Ramaswamy are advocating for huge state tax cuts on the basis that the ensuing growth, combined with reductions in waste and fraud, would pay for them. What do you think?

Marx famously said that history repeats itself twice–once as tragedy, and once as farce. He was wrong. With the GOP and tax cuts, the hits just keep on coming.

Trump is apparently threatening Canada with new tariffs for the wildfire smoke even though it is caused primarily by climate change, a phenomenon he rejects as a Chinese hoax. In addition, one of the rationales for his new tariffs on Brazil is the country’s alleged failure to get deforestation under control; Lula has done a far better job of this than Trump’s buddy Bolsonaro, who basically told Brazilians to let it rip.

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Next thing you know, he’ll be offering the Chinese a geopolitical partnership while accusing them of flipping the 2020 election to Biden. Oh, wait . . .

Trump misrepresented facts and documents, ignored his own efforts to weaken our defenses against foreign interference, and made no attempt to create a nexus between the supposed foreign rigging and his precious SAVE Act. In other words, it was a typical performance last night. The base will be happy, but no one will be persuaded.

Even Fox was cautious about his allegations. Paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to settle defamation suits will do that to you.

Roman emperors lacked mass media and the internet, so they relied on their images on coins to get the message across. Fittingly enough for a man who frequently resembles Caligula, Trump appears to be trying the same thing. Will it work for him?

No, because we have mass media and the internet. We also use credit cards more often than cash. It is unlikely that putting Trump’s signature and image on currency will win him much support, although his ego will undoubtedly be gratified.

The better question is, did the Treasury pay him for the use of his image? It would be unlike him not to demand a cut from the transaction.

Effective opposition contains three components. First, you have to take positions on the issues that will get you elected; second, you have to take actions while in office to check Trump’s excesses; and third, you have to mobilize public support for guardrails against the abuse of executive power.

What effective opposition does not consist of is taking positions that are unpopular and unrealistic, going off on personal safaris that divide the Democratic Party, and making loud and controversial statements on social media that alienate potential swing voters. In other words, the Democrats do not need their own version of the Tea Party; they are the party of responsible adults and stable government, not a flock of sheep or a collection of noisy narcissists.

What does Pete Hegseth have in common with Frank Thomas and Doug Flutie? Why, concern about low testosterone, of course! In an apparent attempt to make sure that our soldiers are half-crazed killers, he intends to test their testosterone levels, and to up them where necessary.

In light of our failure to find a solution to the Strait of Hormuz problem, perhaps Hegseth should actually be requiring the use of Prevagen. He could start with himself.

St. Peter is waiting for him with some pointed questions.

P: The boss and I need to clear up some points before we let you in.

G: No problem. I’m proud of my record. I always tried to do good.

P: Then why did you sell your soul to Trump? You seem to have a well-developed moral sense, and that man is evil.

G: I figured that would be your first question.

P: As you should, Captain Obvious.

G: I have three answers for you. First, I don’t agree that Trump is evil. Sure, he’s rough with his mouth, narcissistic, and oblivious to anyone else’s suffering. But he means well. He wants the best for America and the world. I’ve spent lots of time with him, so I should know.

P: We have a different perception up here. He’s a totally self-centered man who does nothing but wreck things in order to prove he’s the boss of everyone and everything.

G: Well, that’s your opinion. The second answer is that I broke from Trump on occasion, particularly after January 6.

P: And then you went right back to him as soon as the coast was clear.

G: Which brings me to my third point–I was playing the insider game in order to influence policy for good. It worked, too!

P: You mean, as in the Iran war? As your friend Sarah Palin would say, how’s that Middle East war thing working for you?

G: We just need to keep bombing. The plan is a good one. It just needs more time.

P: And more useless deaths. Just like Gaza. Are you proud of that, too?

G: The civilian deaths were unfortunate, but necessary. Israel was in danger. They’re the chosen people of your boss, right?

P: My boss doesn’t have chosen people. That doesn’t make any sense.

G: The Bible says so.

P: The Bible was written by men with an axe to grind, not my boss. And didn’t you read your Declaration of Independence? It says all men are created equal. It doesn’t talk about chosen people.

G: Some people are a little more equal than others. Israel is an admirable country. It’s a democracy that doesn’t take any crap from its neighbors. We should support it even if it kills a few innocent people every now and then.

P: It hasn’t been a few over the last several years.

G: I also supported Ukraine. Give me credit for that.

P: So noted. My last question relates to a statement you made years ago about being a proud white man who refused to be silenced. Did you really think it was appropriate to turn yourself into a white Rosa Parks? Do you really see yourself as some sort of a victim?

G: It felt good to say that. I made lots of friends with the far right that day. It helped me with Trump and my career. It wasn’t totally wrong, either. Wokeness was out of control. Trump has fixed that.

P: Yes, he thinks white South Africans are the only oppressed people in the world. That’s ridiculous and offensive.

G: Any other questions?

P: No. I’ll consult with the boss and get back to you.

I initially thought that Trump Accounts were just another tax shelter for wealthy families. On further review, that turned out not to be true; contributions from parents don’t receive favorable tax treatment. Does that mean the accounts are not regressive?

No, because relatively affluent parents are in a better position than poor parents to fill out the paperwork to create the accounts and obtain federal funding.

North Carolina is a purplish state–it tends to elect Democratic governors–but it generally leans a little bit red. What does that mean for the Cooper campaign?

There is probably such a thing as a Trump-Cooper voter. Cooper will want to keep him on his side. That means, in all likelihood, that Cooper will spend less time bashing Trump than most of his blue team colleagues. When he does complain about the current state of affairs, he will probably do it without mentioning Trump’s name, and when he does single out guilty parties, they will be Trump’s evil advisers, not the man himself.

The first Cooper commercial in wide circulation shows an extremely avuncular Roy in a burgundy shirt talking about his small town upbringing. The second one has him looking serious in a suit and talking about how tough he is on crime. What conclusions should we draw from these ads?

Cooper knows that Whatley plans to portray him as weak and woke, because, well, what else does the guy have to run on? Cooper is trying to define himself before his opponent does. Since he is a known commodity in North Carolina politics, that shouldn’t be too difficult.

To the surprise of no one, the NYT has revealed that Marco Rubio is actually running Venezuela. What does that mean for the future of liberal democracy there?

If Venezuela had a freely elected leader, he or she would have the legitimacy and plenty of incentive to demand that the United States return full sovereignty to the new government. We would no longer have any kind of moral claim to control Venezuela’s revenues. How would Trump respond to that?

Not well, I imagine; for him, it was always about the oil. Better to keep Delcy in charge for the foreseeable future.

Trump is frustrated. He continues to tell us that the Iranian negotiating team has capitulated to all of his demands, but shortly thereafter, Iran launches new attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz. These people are crazy, and they negotiate in bad faith.

In all likelihood, of course, Trump is lying about the concessions made by the Iranian negotiators, but you can appreciate his frustration. Dealing with people who don’t keep their word and contradict in public what they say in private–he might as well be negotiating with himself.

They are both angry, flamboyant partisans with plenty of skeletons in their closets. But are they different in other ways?

Platner, as I understand it, was discovered and groomed to be a candidate by consultants who thought he had the look and the personality to win over working-class voters in Maine. He was abandoned by the Democratic Party when his liabilities became overwhelming. Paxton, on the other hand, is a self-created politician with views on the right edge of the GOP mainstream who succeeded in holding on to his support in the party in spite of his personal failings.