Cromwell

Things couldn’t get worse, right? Well, actually, they have been worse, and in my lifetime. In 1968, America’s cities were burning, RFK and MLK were assassinated, and the country was torn apart by the war. The country voted for law and order in the presidential election, and the rest is history.

The difference between now and then is that the threat to stability came from people who had been denied the benefits of liberal democracy and were seeking a more inclusionary version of the existing system. Today, the threat comes from reactionaries who don’t believe in liberal democracy, but in their supposed God-given entitlement to political, social, and economic supremacy.

Macron is a brilliant man, and he was right on the big issues. He understood that slow growth was making the French welfare state unsustainable and France itself increasingly irrelevant. He did what he could to solve the problems. In the end, however, he failed. Today, France is caught between the demands of bond vigilantes and a citizenry that refuses to give up even small fragments of its welfare state. In the end, the circle will probably be squared by violence–most likely from a newly repressive state.

Why did Macron fail? Because his communications and political skills were inadequate for a very tough job. Persuading the French people to move into the 21st century was always going to be a difficult sell. I’m not at all sure that anyone could have done a better job than he did. The bottom line, however, is that the French center isn’t holding, and the next leader will probably come from the far right, which has no answers except nostalgia and a big stick. When the history books are written, Macron will get a large part of the blame.

Trump and J.D. couldn’t help opining on the riots. They blamed them on immigrants, spoiled elites, and wokesters. Is there any truth to their statements?

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that immigrants participated in disproportionate numbers, and wokeness has never infiltrated the political discussion in France to the extent it did here. This was a movement that started with French students (historically, a very politically active group), spread to include the grievances of the population as a whole, and was hijacked by far-left radicals. In short, the answer to the question is no.

Trump and J.D. probably believe that any event which assists the international brotherhood of nationalists is good for them and America. What they will actually find, if the RN wins the election, is that right-wing populists in France are even less sympathetic to America than the Macron regime. There is no international brotherhood of nationalists; by definition, there can’t be.

My head and heart are at war over the election. My heart is rooting desperately for a blue tsunami to send the message to the world that Trump can and will be stopped; my head, however, is telling me that he has workarounds for virtually every guardrail the Democrats will build, that the next two years will be an excruciating series of constitutional crises, and that the man on golf cart will govern even more autocratically than before. Can these positions be reconciled?

Yes. The ideal outcome would be a massive blue team victory in the House, but a pickup of only three seats in the Senate, not to include Maine. Under this scenario, the Republicans would retain nominal, but not practical, control of the Senate; Trump’s more obnoxious appointments and measures would be blocked by Collins and Murkowski. Trump’s inevitable attacks on Congress would carry far less sting, and J.D. would have to spend his days in Washington casting tiebreaking votes instead of campaigning.

It could happen. We’ll see.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, looming midterm blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

The polls are looking pretty bad, and now I’ve got to choose.

If I can’t end my stupid war, chances are, we’ll lose.

__________________

Prices have gone up and up; the economy’s not great.

I tell my friends this too will pass; they only have to wait.

The vote’s less than a month away; the time is getting late.

Some opposition I can stand; it’s Democrats I hate.

_____________________

I’ve got the blues.

The lost election blues.

I’ve rallied almost everywhere;

I’ve really paid my dues.

The Democrats are coming back;

They never went away.

But I’ve got plans to deal with them.

They won’t get in my way.

Trump 1.0 featured an openly reactionary economic plan. Through tariffs and the deregulation of the fossil fuel industries, Trump sought to bring back an America full of jobs for burly, sweaty men. All jobs were not equal in his view; if you were an installer of solar panels, so much the worse for you.

Trump 2.0 has pursued the reactionary agenda even more vigorously. This time, however, he has paired it with the deregulation and promotion of AI–in other words, the promise of a utopian future. What’s going on here? What holds these two mutually exclusive visions of a great past and a vastly greater future together?

Political expediency in the form of new and powerful allies and an intense desire to disrupt the status quo. Other than that, nothing, as J.D. will probably learn to his cost.

The French government accuses the left of supporting the riots that are causing plenty of damage in cities all over the country. There is some reason to believe it. Who will ultimately benefit from the riots?

The RN, of course. The populist right has no realistic answers for the country’s fiscal and economic problems, but law and order is right up its alley. If the average French voter is forced to choose between an authoritarian who will crack down on rioters and a left which encourages disorder in 2027, which side do you think he will pick?

The same one he picked in America in 1968 and 2024, of course.

Multinational oil companies based in the U.S. are making huge profits as a result of Trump’s stupid war. You would think there would be plenty of agitation from the left to tax those profits, but I haven’t seen any chatter on that subject. What is going on here?

I think the public is completely focused on Trump’s responsibility for the war, so the oil companies are getting a free pass. I doubt that will last forever, however.

What could cause the AI bubble to pop? Here are the most likely candidates, in no particular order:

1. CHINESE COMPETITION: A Chinese company announces it has created a model that works almost as well as the best American model at a much lower price. Tech stock prices crater.

2. FAILURE OF A BIG AI PLAYER: It becomes obvious that one of the major American tech companies has fallen far behind the competition. Its value collapses; the ripple effects are felt throughout the economy.

3. OUT OF CONTROL AI: One of the models shuts down a major piece of American infrastructure in its quest to build a better paper clip. The regulatory backlash is fierce and immediate. Public faith in AI plummets, as do stock prices. Consumer spending follows, and a recession looms.

Even the AI optimists admit that there will be casualties as the models improve. In their view, however, they will just be bumps in the road. History, particularly with regard to railroad construction, tells us otherwise.

Trump has chosen to support the interests of the tech barons over the fears of his base. The barons, led by Musk, have responded by pouring huge sums of money into GOP PACs. What does that mean for the future? Will the barons start pulling away from Trump and Vance if the pendulum is clearly swinging the other way, or will they double down on the GOP and just hope that a combination of improving conditions and an avalanche of campaign ads will carry the day in 2028?

I will make two predictions. First, the barons who are openly contemptuous of liberal democracy are likely to stay the course, while the others will begin to pull away. Musk, for example, is too openly committed to his extreme right-wing views to hedge his bets. Second, J.D. will be vulnerable to a right-wing populist in the primaries and a left-wing populist in the general election if he makes the same choice as Trump. That will mean big trouble for tech in the foreseeable future.

It would appear that God is calling Mike Johnson to start a landscaping business back home; in spite of the GOP gerrymanders, the Democrats only have to win a handful of about twenty toss-up seats in order to gain control of the House. It would take the political equivalent of a miracle to prevent that from happening.

Fortunately for Johnson, he believes passionately in miracles and in Donald Trump. For him, they’re the same thing. For us, not so much.

Michael Whatley is off the air in North Carolina. His laser focus on crime didn’t pay, to the relief of those of us who despised his nasty commercials. Cooper is going to win the vacant seat here fairly easily, as I predicted months ago.

That leaves eight competitive races, which is an exceptional number, based on recent history: Maine; Michigan; New Hampshire; Ohio; Alaska; Texas; Kansas; and Iowa. The Democrats need to hold Michigan (with a poor candidate) and New Hampshire (with a strong Republican challenger) and split the rest to gain control of the Senate. Can they do it?

It will be a coin flip. A 50-50 split is a real possibility, which would mean J.D. will have to spend precious campaign time running the Senate in 2028. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

The interesting development here is the movement away from the GOP in the Midwest. The farmers–at least some of them–have finally figured out that Trump’s wars and tariffs are bad for their business, and that culture war victories don’t pay the rent. Does that mean we are seeing a significant shift which could give the left more of a chance to win the Senate in the future? I doubt it, but TBD.

Six Republican senators out of 53–the usual suspects, with little to lose–have now signed a letter demanding answers about the loss of Ukrainian intelligence access. Together with the Democrats, they represent a majority of the Senate. Will they actually use their power to do something if they don’t get an appropriate answer, or will they, as usual, just settle for wringing their hands?

Based on the last two years, I would bet heavily on Option 2.

As I’ve noted innumerable times, the foundation of the Republican Party is a bargain in which the PDP faction gets tax cuts and business deregulation and the Reactionaries receive official support for the war on wokeness. The election of Trump did not fundamentally change this dynamic, although it did change the balance of power between the two factions and permit him to toggle back and forth without repercussions. But what happens after Trump leaves the scene? Will the GOP revert back to a party in which the PDPs hold the reins and the Reactionaries just provide the votes?

I don’t think so. I suspect there will be an effort on the part of at least one of the GOP presidential wannabes to return the party back to its Reaganite glory days. If the economy is struggling in 2028, there may even be substantial public support for a candidate who prioritizes the economy over culture war. I don’t think it will work, however. I believe the Reactionaries will maintain the ultimate control over the party for at least one more election cycle, largely due to the lingering influence of Trump, who isn’t really going anywhere.

While the military version of Starlink upon which Ukraine relies was developed by Elon Musk, and Musk has attempted to exert influence on foreign governments for years, the system is operated by the US government, so it is unlikely that Musk is primarily responsible for the decision to limit Ukrainian access to it. Trump can take credit for that development if he has the nerve to do so.

But what will happen in the future if the interests of Musk and the US government are no longer aligned? Who controls in that situation: the man with the tech and the money, or the guy with the law and the guns on his side?

Musk will have more power than any single private individual in my lifetime to dictate policy after 2028, particularly if Grok becomes more capable than its competitors. More than anyone since J.P. Morgan, and possibly more than him. It is a scary thought for the future.