Month: January 2025

The essence of mercantilism is that it views the state, not the individual, as the focus of economic activity. No one doubts that Trump is a mercantilist. How would this operate in practice relative to China?

It makes perfect sense to view the Chinese state, not individuals and corporations, as the party on the other side; after all, the “Chinese dream” is for China as a whole to become strong and prosperous, and individuals to own a microscopic piece of the pie. The CCP is so entwined with the Chinese economy that it can plausibly direct its individual actors to buy, or refuse to buy, American products, for example. On the American side, however, this approach won’t work; Trump can’t order you or me to buy x number of Chinese products, because our system subordinates the state to individual economic actors. That means any attempt at managed trade, which is clearly Trump’s objective, is going to be completely one-sided.

The birthright citizenship executive order looks like the legal equivalent of the Gaetz nomination–a deliberate provocation directed at the judicial system. What is Trump trying to do here?

From his perspective, he probably thinks he can’t lose. If his position is somehow upheld, he will know that the legal system has completely capitulated to him. If, as is more likely, the executive order is invalidated, he can scream about how the establishment is thwarting him again. He needs a foil to maintain his populist bona fides; the Supreme Court could very well do the job for him.

I don’t think he will defy this order if he loses. That is much more likely if the courts strike down one of his core deportation measures. Birthright citizenship, an abstract issue with few practical short-term consequences, is more of a trial balloon.

Russell Vought made little attempt to deny that Trump intends to impound funds appropriated by Congress on the basis that the statute prohibiting impoundment is unconstitutional. The ability to spend for particular purposes is at the heart of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. And yet, it appears that Vought will be confirmed on the basis that he is competent.

A competent revolutionary, in fact. The establishment should logically prefer revolutionaries who are incompetent.

What was that Lenin said about capitalists selling the rope that would hang them?

As is his wont, Trump threatened the Russians with tariffs and sanctions if they refuse to come to the bargaining table. Will Putin be impressed?

Hardly. The only economic measures that Trump could apply that haven’t been tried yet would raise the price of gasoline for his voters. Is that really plausible?

The only leverage we have over Putin is a threat to escalate the war. If Trump threatens that, given his record on Ukraine, Putin won’t take him seriously. I wouldn’t, either.

Well, that didn’t take long. As it turns out, multiple cases have been filed in a variety of federal courts on the birthright citizenship issue. A federal judge in Washington has already issued an order blocking the enforcement of the executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” He even chastised the DOJ attorneys for defending an indefensible position.

This is no surprise. What really matters is what happens next. The case will be at the door of the Supreme Court pretty quickly. Will the Court stand up to Trump or roll over? If the former, will Trump obey the order? The answers to those questions may well define his presidency.

Ramaswamy has cut his ties with DOGE in order to run for governor of Ohio, a prize he is highly unlikely to win. The accounts I have read indicate that his departure was engineered by Elon Musk. What is going on here?

Ramaswamy, from Musk’s perspective, has two serious shortcomings: he’s too foreign and too honest. A sharp-tongued ethnic Indian telling American workers they’re too soft and stupid isn’t a good look for the project with the MAGA crowd. Even Musk, who isn’t exactly known for his sensitivity to public opinion, understands that.

But don’t miss the irony here! Ramaswamy’s idea of replacing bumbling Americans with sharper Asians is an updated version of the Great Replacement Theory.

The principal reason the Democrats lost in 2024 was public dissatisfaction, deserved or not, with the state of the economy. A related reason was that the Democrats had no viable plan to improve matters due to the operation of the McConnell Project; there was no way to get enough votes in the Senate for legislation to replace the dollar store economy, and the Supreme Court now has the final say on regulations it doesn’t like. What does this mean for 2026 and 2028?

For 2026, it doesn’t mean much; the Democrats will be able to run simply on the mistakes and the overreaching of the new administration. But in 2028, they will have to decide whether they will campaign as a voice for simple competence with no great (and therefore divisive) vision for the future or as a populist party determined to crush the dollar store and the techno-aristocracy by eliminating the filibuster and reforming the judiciary. If Trump is perceived as a failure, the former course will be safer, if uninspiring; if he is viewed as a success, the latter will be a necessity.

As I’ve noted before, the right views local and state cops as an essential barrier between respectable, Godfearing white citizens and vengeful, ruthless minority criminals. Federal law enforcement officers, on the other hand, are jackbooted thugs who want to take away your liberty to defraud suckers and cheat on your taxes. They need to go.

On its face, the Capitol law enforcement officers who were injured on January 6 resemble the first group more than the second. Trump, however, has effectively concluded they belonged in the jackbooted thug cohort by pardoning rioters who committed violent crimes. Most of his GOP allies, but not all, appear to agree with him. Remember that the next time you hear the right talking about the sanctity of the law.

The order on birthright citizenship clearly lacks any legal merit. It is an immediate challenge to the judicial system; a lawsuit has already been filed in a federal court in Massachusetts. Will the judiciary–in the end, the Supreme Court– follow the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the clear case law or bend the knee and go completely MAGA? If the former, can it enforce its will against a president whose respect for the law is completely selective and self-interested? These are extremely important questions, the resolution of which will have enormous implications for our system for the foreseeable future.

The new Title 42 interpretation should also fail a legal challenge, since there is no factual basis for it, but that issue will take longer to resolve. Along the same lines, attempts to deny asylum seekers due process will also run into legal trouble, and “Remain in Mexico” depends on the good will of the Mexican government. The actual scope of the orders relating to the use of the military in immigration matters, another issue with great legal and political importance, cannot be determined at this time. We’ll have to see what they really mean over the next few months.

What Trump really needs, if he genuinely wants to begin a mass deportation program, is a vast increase in funding of the immigration system and the elimination of ambiguities in the law relating to people who are neither pure economic nor political refugees. With the filibuster in place, his chances of #2 are slim. #1 is more likely, but spending increases will be fraught in a world in which tax cuts are the real priority.

For all of the swaggering and tough talk, Trump didn’t actually take any meaningful action on tariffs yesterday. One assumes this is for the usual reasons: because he likes cliffhangers, which make him the center of attention; and because he is getting inconsistent advice from CLs and Reactionaries and doesn’t really know what to do.

Trump has always treated uncertainty as his friend. Businessmen, who need to plan months and even years ahead based on reliable information, see the world very differently. They are going to have more issues with Trump than they thought when they voted for him, as most of them did.

Will Trump be guided more by reactionary ideology or by the short-term actions of the market? Don’t expect a consistent answer to that question.

The Dylan movie was excellent; a few of the scenes made me laugh out loud. It and the Ohio State victory did a good job of taking my mind off of the inauguration, which was every bit as bad as I thought it would be. More on that in the coming days.

If there is one theme I would single out immediately, it is the fixation with bullying Mexico, Canada, and Panama. Trump’s focus on the Panama Canal is inexplicable–it didn’t feature in his first term, and it hasn’t changed much–and his repeated attacks on our immediate neighbors are inconsistent with the treaty he negotiated and signed with them, to say nothing of the national interest.

Perhaps he wants to do Putin one better and turn both of our neighbors into bitter enemies.

Viktor Orban made Hungary the illiberal democracy it is today in part by consolidating control of the media in the hands of his friends. In today’s America, Tik Tok is apparently the principal source of news for many people. Is it surprising, then, that Trump would take such a strong interest in its ownership?

Since Orban is a MAGA role model, it is easy to imagine Trump engineering a transaction which results in either the government he will control in a few hours or one of his new right-wing tech allies running Tik Tok. What would Xi demand in return? An end to talk about tariffs? A free hand in Taiwan? TBD.

On this year’s MLK Day, we are transferring power to a man who believes that most minorities are lazy losers and that the true victims of government oppression are white Christians. He would argue that this is consistent with King’s vision of a color-blind society, but history will judge otherwise.

In 2017, I went to see “La La Land” on Inauguration Day as a protest against “American Carnage.” Today, we’re going to the Dylan movie for the same reason. It’s the best we can do, for now.

Trump is at Mar-a-Lago preparing for the big day. Musk is also there, as usual.

T: Elon! How’s the richest man in the world doing?

M: Great! How’s the most powerful man in the world doing today?

T: Great! We make an awesome team, don’t we?

M: Absolutely! Together, we’re going to remake America! Nobody will recognize it when we’re done!

T: Right! Just as you always say, we’re going to break things! We’re going to destroy the deep state! We’re going to punish my enemies, get rid of wokeness, and send all the illegals packing! It starts right away!

M: Yeah, we’re going to do all of those things, but the big thing is that we’re going to make an America that’s fit for a genius like me. We’re going to bring all of the best and brightest here, get rid of the mediocre and the bureaucrats, and build an economy that will send people to Mars.

T: But we have to take care of the mediocre. After all, millions of them voted for me. They’re counting on me to make their lives more secure.

M: You’ll bamboozle them. Keep them entertained with your antics while you get rid of their hammock of dependency. We need an America that works for the brilliant. Everyone else just rides in their wake.

T: Bannon doesn’t like that kind of rhetoric. He really wants an America that protects ordinary workers.

M: That’s exactly what we don’t need. If you focus on average people, you get average America. We want great America. That’s what you’re all about.

T: That’s true. It’s on my hat.

M: Now go out there and send a message that you’re the boss! America needs to feel the stick of authority! Fill your opponents with terror! Then we can start breaking things and building new ones.

T: Sometimes you sound like Putin.

M: Putin’s a thug. He ran all of the best people out of his country. But he isn’t wrong about everything. All countries need to be run with a firm hand by the smartest and the most ruthless. That’s you and me.

T: But what about democracy? What about my voters? What about the law and my tiny majority in the House?

M: Just use your skills to keep everyone guessing and never appear to back down. I’ll take care of the other stuff.

Mitch McConnell, like many PBP leaders before him, had a simple plan–throw the Reactionaries enough red meat on social issues to keep them on board, but maintain control over the agenda, particularly with regard to tax cuts. It worked until Trump and MAGA renegotiated the deal and put the Reactionaries in control.

Musk, through his pungent criticisms of the left, is trying to use the McConnell playbook to implement the CL agenda. But MAGA has seen through that gambit; it understands that the CL vision of a deregulated America that is safe for huge tech businesses is far from its own. The alliance of convenience cannot last; by the end of the year, there will be a clear winner and loser.