Cromwell

The Heritage Foundation went all-in for Trump in 2024. Its “Project 2025” served as a blueprint for many of Trump’s acts of cultural, economic, and political demolition in the first half of his term. The American people noted their intense disapproval of Trump and his ideas during the midterms, which leaves Heritage in a difficult spot. Where will it go from here?

As I see it, Heritage has two choices: either distance itself from Trump the capricious authoritarian and insist that it only stands for its own reactionary ideas; or dive deeper into anti-democratic theories of government. The first would be a transparent and self-serving rewriting of history; the second is hardly likely to get much of a hearing from anyone outside of the extreme elements of the reactionary base in a country that appears to be rediscovering its liberal democratic roots.

If you were a GOP candidate, how would you bridge the gap on immigration, trade, and the promotion of liberal democratic values? Here are my suggestions:

1. IMMIGRATION: Accept Trump’s efforts to control the border, but limit raids and deportations to dangerous criminals, and provide explicit protections short of full citizenship to Dreamers and other productive longtime residents. Liberalize legal immigration standards to meet needs for laborers in areas such as construction and elder care.

2. TRADE: Identify Chinese imports as the problem. Work with other countries throughout the world to reduce the Chinese trade surplus. Get rid of the other tariffs.

3. LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC VALUES: Support liberal democratic allies around the world. Promote universal human rights through publicity and diplomacy, but disclaim any desire to remake autocratic states through military force.

Plenty of ink has been spilled about the differences between the Reagan and Trump wings of the GOP. What are these differences, and can they be synthesized?

The two wings actually agree on tax cuts for the wealthy, business deregulation, and a powerful military. They disagree on free trade, immigration, and the point of having the powerful military; Reagan wanted to use it to promote universal human rights, while Trump would deny that any such thing exists.

How can the differences on trade, immigration, and foreign policy be bridged? For that, see my next post.

Oren Cass has been a vocal proponent of Trump’s tariff and deportation regime. He insisted, against all of the evidence, that a kindly and constructive Uncle Donald would pop out of nowhere and work with Congress to give his new economic scheme a permanent and reliable foundation. Now that Trump has been repudiated by the electorate, however, Cass is singing a different tune. He insists that Trumpism is a purely personal phenomenon with no consistent ideological content, that nothing new has actually been created after all of the destruction, and that the choice between Reaganite tax cutting and deregulation and New Right protectionism and interventionism will be made from scratch over the next few years.

This argument ignores two important facts. First of all, while it is certainly true that the most important component of Trumpism is the vicious and vindictive personality of the man on golf cart, mercantilism plays a significant part in it, as well. It was not for nothing that Cass steadfastly supported him until the electorate turned against him. Second, J.D., the leader of the Godly Society element of the administration, relies heavily on Trumpian anger and capriciousness to keep all of the factions in line; he also supported Trump’s “Reaganite” line of cutting taxes for the rich and deregulating AI.

In short, the battle lines between the New Right and the Reaganites are not as clear in the real world as Cass makes them out to be, and Trump’s failures are partially attributable to the New Right policies that Cass espouses.

J.D. clearly believes the war is the greatest obstacle to a successful campaign for the nomination in 2028. He is undoubtedly correct; if the war, with its corresponding increase in prices, is still going on in 2028, he will be toast. But what if it isn’t? Is he home free?

The road map to beating J.D. requires one of his competitors to peel off about 25 percent of the base and to win all of the Haley vote. Even without the war, J.D.’s hold on the base is shaky on the following issues: AI/Big Tech/data centers; tariffs; and his marriage to Usha. Could that amount to 25 percent of the base?

In my opinion, yes. There is a lane for DeSantis if he has the nerve and the mental agility to take it.

The Constitution does not contemplate impeachment for incompetence. Thomas Massie knows that, which is why his articles are grounded in alleged violations of statutes and the Constitution. That approach is legally appropriate.

The problem with most of his articles is that Hegseth was doing what Trump told him to do. That means, not just that he can plead the following orders defense, but that the rest of the GOP will rally around both him and Trump. As a practical matter, therefore, his articles are mostly doomed to fail.

The obvious exception is the allegation about attempting to prosecute Mark Kelly. That article has constitutional implications and cannot be tied directly to Trump. It also appeals to the self-interest of members of Congress. Its chances are much better.

I don’t know why Massie didn’t include an allegation about the mishandling of classified information, which would go beyond mere incompetence and cannot be attributed to Trump. If his articles fail, the Democrats would be wise to include it in a subsequent resolution after the end of the year.

Personally, I would say the real issue with Hegseth is his desire to politicize the military on Trump’s behalf, but I would acknowledge it might be difficult to prove that allegation.

J.D. accepts the GOP nomination for president in 2028.

“I’m proud to have Donald Trump’s endorsement for president. He is the very embodiment of the values of MAGA. In particular, he believes that America should take care of its own first, and avoid unnecessary foreign wars, most notably in the Middle East.

I know, I know, you’re saying he actually started a war with Iran. But he didn’t do that. It was Bibi, and Israel, and the neocons that did it! That’s right–they’re still around. Jewish neocons. They were hovering around our administration like vultures. They sold him a bill of goods, and in a moment of blindness, he bought it. But he didn’t mean to, and it won’t happen again.

Donald Trump will always put America first. He knows now that he can’t trust the Israelis and the neocons. And so do I. There will be no wasteful foreign wars, and no neocons, in my administration.”

Andrew Johnson campaigned vigorously for a program of reactionary presidential Reconstruction in the 1866 midterms. His efforts failed completely. The power to mold Reconstruction passed from the executive to the Radical Republicans in Congress, an unsuccessful impeachment ensued, and the rest is history.

It sounds a bit like last week, no? Except that Johnson was an accidental president without a faithful base, so the ultimate outcome of the coming battle between the two branches of the federal government is likely to be quite different.

I watched as much of the interview as I could stand last night. Trump seemed more dazed than angry, but he was unquestionably himself; he blamed everyone but himself for the blue tsunami, including his handpicked candidates, the media, and his political team. As far as he’s concerned, the country still loves him; that’s the message he takes from his rallies.

As usual, Trump measured the success of his presidency by the stock market. More unusually, he appeared to concede that his mass deportations had gone too far, and that he was open to a deal on immigration. This just after he made Stephen Miller his chief of staff.

What should we make of the obvious contradiction? To expect an even wilder ride for the next two years.

Stephen Miller’s theory of the case is that the base viewed the Iran war as a betrayal of “America First.” All Trump has to do is end the war and reduce gas prices; at that point, the base will return, and Trump will wield as much clout as before. Does that make sense?

No, for multiple reasons. First of all, based on history and the polls, the Democrats were likely to win the midterms even without the war. The war turned an incipient blue wave into a tsunami. Second, Trump can’t end the war rapidly without being labeled as a loser. Finally, the support of the base is not enough to win elections. Trump won in 2024 because swing voters–not the base–thought he would bring back the economy of 2019. They ignored his record, his capricious personality, and his program, which was practically designed to create more inflation. They are paying the price for it today.

On the new chief of staff they call Steve.

He’s exactly what we didn’t need.

This move to the right

Means perpetual fights.

Things are bound to get worse, I believe.

The election was reasonably close in 2020, so the leaders of the New Right could pretend Trump’s loss was due to electoral fraud. Trump won a tiny popular vote majority in 2024, so they could argue their agenda had substantial public support. But what about now? Trumpism has been roundly repudiated by the electorate. What can they say about democracy now?

They will go back to their anti-democratic roots. Their real position is that most Americans shouldn’t have any say in government. Only reasonably affluent white Christian men should have the right to vote and hold office.

History tells us that presidents of both parties tend to focus more on foreign policy after taking a beating in the midterm elections. When you add to that Trump’s insatiable need to be the center of attention and to prove that he’s the world’s boss, you have a recipe for explosions over the next two years.

My guess is that Trump will follow his worst impulses to an even greater degree than before, and that no one in America will be able to stop him. That will be bad news for Ukraine, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, Venezuela, and virtually all of the EU. Putin and Xi, on the other hand, will have plenty of reasons to rejoice.

I really didn’t think Trump could do anything to shock me at this stage of his presidency, but I was wrong. In the face of a defeat of historic proportions, he has replaced one of the few semi-sane members of his administration with Stephen Miller. That’s right–the single most obnoxious man in the government. The guy who is to the right of Attila the Hun. The man who supports a deportation regime that is even worse than Trump’s.

This looks like Michael Corleone sacking Mike Hagen in favor of a better wartime adviser. It sends a clear message to everyone in America that Trump intends to govern as an autocrat, and that public opinion is a matter of no importance to him.

Plenty of commentators have observed that J.D. appears to have a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality when he is campaigning. When he is dealing with, say, the NYT, he is Dr. J.D.–a thoughtful and pious conservative Catholic who struggles mightily against his worst instincts and loves everyone. In front of a MAGA audience, however, he is Mr. MAGA–an angry, slashing troll who revels in cruelty and expresses nothing but contempt for his opponents. It can be extremely difficult to reconcile these two personas.

But what if he is really neither of them? What if he is just a cold opportunist who tells his audience what they want to hear because that is the best way to satisfy his vast ambitions?

I think we will find out between now and 2028.