Cromwell

Trump enjoys trolling the left, and the base loves him for it. The renaming of Lake Ontario and the posts about “New America” are classic examples of the tactic. The left splutters with rage, and MAGA cheers at its impotence.

The dark side to this kind of trolling is that it exposes Trump as a wannabe autocrat who has absolutely no interest in reaching out to the millions of Americans who don’t support him. If public opinion genuinely is of no concern to him, what is preventing him from going full throttle with despotism? Not John Roberts–that’s for sure.

There are two possible rationales for the Iran blockade: to immiserate the people and cause them to rise against the regime; or to deny the regime the funds necessary to fight back. Can either or both of these objectives be achieved?

Probably not. As I’ve pointed out many times, most recently in connection with Cuba, misery alone does not result in revolution. As to the cost of the war, the Iranian regime is not obligated to pay for a large and expensive military establishment in order to fight in its preferred manner; all it has to do is build and operate cheap drones. The blockade, on the other hand, is very expensive to maintain, and the cost to the world economy is rising.

In short, the premise behind the economic war is flawed, just like the assumptions that fueled the bombing campaign. If it works, it will only be because the Iranian leverage will be diminished after the midterms and because we enjoyed such a tremendous advantage in resources that we could afford to squander most of them in the process.

David French is quite properly concerned about Pete Hegseth’s continuing efforts to replace competent and tested military leaders with obsequious loyalists. He thinks–and with good reason–that the meritocratic and nonpartisan culture of the military is being compromised.

It reminds me of Stalin’s purges of the Soviet military in the 1930s, which left the Red Army rudderless in the Finland campaign and in the first months of the German invasion. Or is it more like Hitler gaining complete control of the army after the Night of the Long Knives?

Let’s hope we never find out, but there certainly is reason to be worried.

Russia’s botched privatization of state assets during the Yeltsin years led to the creation of an oligarch class and, ultimately, the advent of the neo-feudal Putin regime. Some observers see an analogy in the Venezuelan oil deal. Are they right?

As far as I can tell, the Delcy government has simply given away the right to exploit some of the nation’s most valuable resources without any kind of public process to a well-connected company with the enthusiastic cooperation of Trump and Rubio. In other words, the answer is yes.

At least we weren’t responsible for Yeltsin’s failures.

As I predicted, the Whatley campaign is talking about crime 24/7. It isn’t working, partly because it is very difficult to redefine a politician who is as well known to the voters as Roy Cooper, and partly because Cooper anticipated this line of attack and has rebutted it effectively.

What is missing here is any meaningful discussion about national issues; after all, Whatley and Cooper are running for the US Senate, not a local prosecutor job. Donald Trump’s name hasn’t come up once in the dueling ads. Not once.

Objectively, that’s ridiculous. As a practical matter, it probably suits both candidates–Whatley, because Trump has very low approval ratings, and Cooper, because he is chasing votes from Trump supporters.

It’s Capital Day! The stock market and corporate profits are soaring, while real wages are stagnating. AI will only exacerbate these trends. Can anything be done to reverse them?

Nostalgia about revitalizing unions didn’t do Biden any good. The real answer revolves around the tax system, which has been skewed to favor capital over labor by the GOP for decades. Even some tech barons acknowledge that AI will require changes to the system. They’re right.

The blue team needs to make this issue a centerpiece of the 2028 campaign. A wealth tax won’t survive legal scrutiny, but large increases in the estate tax and an end to stepped-up basis rules will. So will taxes on AI use and changes to depreciation law and capital gain rates.

In the Godly Society, men work in factories while the little lady stays home and cares for the children. We do not, of course, live in the Godly Society, and the attempt to use tariffs to make it economically possible has already failed. But never fear–J.D. has a new idea! We’re going to take money from a fund designed to help working single mothers and use it to subsidize wives who stay home with the kids. Great idea, eh?

Well, no, for two reasons. First, even though the amount of money suggested for the new subsidy is very large, it won’t even come close in most cases to offsetting the loss of wages incurred by exiting the workforce. Second, by diverting funds from the existing system, J.D. will be making it much harder for single mothers to work, which will run straight into the standard Victorian GOP objection to “welfare.”

Will this proposal survive contact with political and economic reality? I doubt it, but TBD.

Yesterday’s jobs report was surprisingly good. A normal politician would have responded by taking a victory lap, but Donald Trump is no normal politician. He demanded that the Fed reduce interest rates and threatened to cut off all foreign trade if it failed to comply.

Say what? That made absolutely no sense at multiple levels. It was another Trump “Blazing Saddles” moment, or perhaps the act of a child saying he will hold his breath until death unless his parents give him what he wants.

Not even Kevin Warsh can be impressed by this pathetic effort to coerce him.

Assume, instead, that the choice comes down to J.D. and DeSantis. Who is the lesser evil in that case?

Talk about a low bar! I would go with J.D., just because his opportunism means he can be persuaded to moderate his positions under some circumstances. DeSantis doesn’t do that. If you elect him, he will slowly, grimly, methodically, and competently use the resources of the federal government to destroy liberal democratic institutions in our country even if public opinion is completely against him, as it certainly would be.

What we would really hope for is an incredibly divisive campaign that permanently shatters the unity of the reactionary base and leads to a blue team victory. That was my hope in 2024, but it didn’t happen, because Trump was too far ahead to be distracted by the other candidates. J.D. won’t be so lucky in 2028.

Assume that the race for the GOP nomination comes down to J.D. and Ted in 2028. The base will be divided. What should the rest of us think?

Ted is the lesser evil. He isn’t quite the bomb thrower he used to be in his younger days. He has shown at least some ability to work with Democrats on a few issues. Mostly, I would support him because I don’t see him as a counterrevolutionary. He’s a reactionary, but I don’t think he has any burning desire to turn America into an autocracy and blue states into an ash heap; he has too much respect for liberal democratic institutions to try that.

That can’t be true, right? With inflation, the unsuccessful war, the tariffs, and Trump’s repeated attempts at authoritarianism, things have to get better. Don’t they?

No. Little good will come from the election, regardless of the outcome; we will either get what Trump views as an endorsement of his policies or government shutdowns and nonstop constitutional crises. Trump will respond to any effective opposition by ignoring Congress and doubling down on autocracy. Don’t forget that Pete Hegseth is doing his best to turn our military into a right-wing militia by debasing the culture and firing officers who don’t fully embrace his agenda; in the long run, that is Trump’s ace in the hole. Finally, public and private debt and the possibility of the popping of an AI bubble are hanging over the economy. If we have a recession in the next two years, it is likely to be a really bad one, and Trump will respond, as usual, with a combination of denial and abuses of power.

So, yes, these are the good old days. Enjoy them while you can.

Ted Cruz is the administration outsider most often identified as a threat to J.D. How do the two stack up?

They have a lot in common. They are both highly intelligent lawyers with repellent personalities and a talent for trolling the left. Both of them are extremely ambitious and opportunistic. Both of them have strong ties to the religious right. Finally, both of them were passionate Trump critics until they weren’t. Not much to choose from there.

Are there openings for Cruz against J.D.? Not many, given Ted’s barely wavering support for Trump. AI is a potential liability for J.D. that Ted could exploit. Ted could also attack J.D. as being insufficiently committed to the war and Israel. That’s about it, and I don’t think it’s nearly enough.

DeSantis has a better shot than he does.

The NYT says Chevron’s involvement is separate from Trump’s deal with our new Venezuelan partner. Chevron, of course, will be relying on our political clout in Caracas to protect its investments from nationalists, so the deals are not completely separate. Nevertheless, while you can certainly question both the morality and the political wisdom of providing cover for Chevron, the plan at least makes sense for Chevron’s shareholders.

Without Chevron’s involvement in the joint venture, I have the following questions about the deal:

1. Our new partner is a relatively minor player without either the expertise or the financial wherewithal to make the massive improvements that will be required to make the venture a success. Where is the money coming from? Would you lend billions of dollars under these circumstances to the partner without, at a minimum, a guarantee from the US government? I think not, which would mean that the American taxpayer is ultimately funding the enterprise.
2. Using the oil obtained through the joint venture to refill the strategic reserve is logical. However, I have read that the chemical composition of Venezuelan oil makes that impractical, and in any event, the oil purchases would likely exceed the capacity of the reserve. What, then, are we going to do with the oil? Sell it to Chevron? If that is the plan, why not just leave the entire business to Chevron and keep the US government out of it?

J.D. hates it when you talk about his wife. I’m going there, anyway, because the issue really is about him, not Usha.

If you believe, as most Americans do, that this country operates under a secular creed, and that all American citizens, regardless of race, sex, or religion, are equally entitled to a voice in public life, then J.D.’s marriage is, if anything, admirable. If, however, you agree with J.D. that America was created as a Christian nation, that immigrants are harmful to the national fabric, and that “Heritage Americans” are entitled to rule, Usha is a serious problem.

In short, the left thinks that Vance should embrace Usha and ditch his principles, while the extreme right thinks he should ditch Usha and live in accordance with his ideology. In all likelihood, he will do neither, and the glaring contradiction between his family and his ideas will remain a sore spot for years to come.

J.D. attacked Abdul ferociously for his alleged antisemitism during a speech in Michigan yesterday. In an appearance in front of a group of Jewish donors, however, he skillfully used a straw man argument to address concerns about his ties to right-wing podcasters with debatably antisemitic views. Instead of talking about Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, he assured the group that Joe Rogan was not an antisemite and that he wasn’t close to the more extreme Nick Fuentes, who frequently attacks him and his wife. That was an evasion of the question, but it appears to have satisfied most of his audience.

The fact is that both Trump and J.D. believe that right-wing antisemites are an essential part of the Trump coalition and will do everything possible to keep them on board. Trump made this clear to the world after Charlottesville in 2021; J.D. is a lot more slippery, but his stance is the same.