Cromwell

Pete Hegseth has come to the Oval Office to talk about life and times.

T: Heggy! It’s the 25th anniversary of 9/11. What are you doing to commemorate the event?

H: Well, first of all, I’m firing a bunch of generals and replacing them with competent white men. It’s all part of the war on DEI.

T: Excellent!

H: You know even better than I that only conservative white Christian men are fit to lead this country. They’re the only ones who are truly competent. Everyone else is a DEI baby. They have to go.

T: Right. Anything else?

H: We’re all thanking Jesus for sparing you on 9/11. Your heroism on that day was inspiring. I don’t think the country would have survived without you.

T: That’s true. The fake news just doesn’t get it. In light of the occasion, what are you doing to fight the real terrorist threat?

H: You mean, the radical Marxist Democrats?

T: Exactly!

H: They’re the real threat now. We crushed all of the foreigners. They call you “Sir.”

T: So what are you doing to save America from the left?

H: Working every day to change the culture. The military needs to know you’re the boss, and all that stuff about the Constitution is eyewash. They will obey your orders without question. Even if you tell them to shoot unarmed protesters and arrest opposition politicians.

T: Excellent! There are people out there who say that you’re incompetent, because you were lax about secrets, replaced good leaders with suck-ups, and failed to win the war in Iran. They just don’t understand what the real mission is here.

H: Absolutely! And don’t worry about Iran. It’s under control. We’ll win in the end, because you’re a winner. Everything you touch always turns out OK. It’s God’s will.

T: A man after my own heart. You even sound like me. Now go out and fire those DEI babies!

A post on a Florida local TV web site tells us something that was utterly predictable: the deportation of Haitians is resulting in a loss of staff and a serious decline in conditions in Florida nursing homes and ALFs. There is no plan on the part of Florida or federal politicians to do anything about it.

If you’re an elderly Floridian or someone with parents in an ALF, and you voted for Trump, the relevant line is from Billy Joel’s “Big Shot:” “Go on and cry in your coffee, but don’t come bitching to me.” This is what you voted for, so learn to live with it.

In Trump’s world, anyone who can’t be intimidated can be bought. As a result, he loves promising taxpayers large checks with his name on them. You will recall that he was screaming for stimulus just before the 2020 election. He suggested that Americans would get a share of the supposedly massive savings generated by DOGE. He talked about sending checks to compensate for tariffs. Last night, he promised a “Trump Dividend” of $5,000 per adult citizen if the GOP maintains control of both houses of Congress. Should we take this latest promise seriously?

No, for two reasons. First of all, cutting revenues by over $1 trillion at a time when the deficit, interest rates, and inflation are unacceptably high is not exactly a great idea. Second, no one was watching his speech last night except the people in the room, so the average American voter isn’t going to be moved by it.

Oh, darn.

Plenty of GOP politicians are afraid that Trump will make the midterm convention about himself. After all, he isn’t on the ballot, and they are, so logically, they should be the stars of the show.

One thing we can say for certain: Trump believes everything is about him. He has even reportedly concocted a new story in which he was a prominent victim and a hero of 9/11. Why in the world would the convention be any different?

A developer wants to build a new data center in your community. What should you think?

Based on my review of the literature, here are the pros and cons:

1. WATER IMPACTS: The most modern data centers are not really prolific users of water. These concerns are overblown.
2. NOISE: They do create levels of noise that are somewhat incompatible with rural environments.
3. ELECTRICITY BILLS: It depends. Are the developers providing their own power? If not, what is the state of the grid, and how do the developers plan to offset their impacts? Can you trust the local utility company to protect your interests, or is it solely concerned with maximizing its profits? The answers to these questions will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
4. SCALE: These projects are absolutely massive. They don’t typically fit in industrial parks, so they have to go in rural areas. Their scale will be inconsistent with the character of your community.
5. JOBS: The data center will create a small number of permanent jobs. The big impact will be a temporary one to the construction industry. If your community has lots of underemployed trade workers, this project will be of great benefit to them. If it doesn’t, you may find that more valuable developments will be delayed if the data center is built.
6. TAX REVENUES: The data center will increase your tax base, probably significantly, unless your state or local government has agreed to subsidize it.

The bottom line here is that each community is different, and the balance between undesirable impacts and economic benefits will vary from area to area. As a general rule, however, it is a mistake to either subsidize the data center or rely on the utility company to keep your bills down. Make sure to read the fine print on electricity costs before you make up your mind.

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.