Month: January 2025

For years, Viktor Orban was viewed as a role model for an America run by MAGA. Today, however, it appears that he has been eclipsed by Milei, who combines a lot of gruff reactionary talk on social issues with an economic program that is a CL’s dream. What does that tell you about MAGA?

That, thanks largely to Elon Musk, the wind is blowing from the CL side. Will that last? Probably not, because the American economy in no way resembles Argentina’s, and the CL program will do a lot of damage in the unlikely event that it gets through Congress.

Given his experience and mindset, it was inevitable that Trump would view the Panama Canal treaty as the worst real estate deal in American history–think the Louisiana Purchase or Alaska in reverse. Is he right?

No, because the treaty was not a real estate deal. It was an effort to prove to the people and leaders of Central and South America that the bad old days of Yankee imperialism were over. It was also an attempt to forestall future efforts by indigenous left-wing militants to sabotage the operation of the canal. In those terms, the agreement succeeded admirably.

Trump doesn’t understand these ideas; he only believes in dollars and military force. But then, he wants to bring back Yankee imperialism, so what did you expect?

The Economist divides Trump’s economic advisers into three groups: America Firsters; mainstream conservatives; and tech tycoons. Their interests overlap in some respects, but their policy ideas are very different. Does this analysis fit the facts?

Yes, because it aligns perfectly with the factional split that I identified ten years ago. America Firsters are Reactionaries; mainstream conservatives are PBPs; and the tech tycoons are CLs. In other words, the divergence of opinions on economic issues is not a new development; it is a key feature of the Republican Party.

As we know from extensive experience, Trump likes to keep his options open as long as possible. He rarely commits to a course of action until he absolutely has to, and even his apparently final positions can change very quickly. He believes this unpredictability is an asset in dealing with foreign leaders.

But what about Congress? How do Thune and Johnson deal with a man who can pull the rug out from under them at a moment’s notice? How do the Republicans move legislation through the system when they don’t know what the man in charge really wants?

They will find that Trump has very few fixed ideas about domestic policy other than the need to punish his enemies and the desire to be the center of attention. Their best course of action is to do what they think is right and let the man on golf cart take the credit for it if it succeeds.

There was never any plausible national security reason to block the sale of US Steel to a Japanese company. The only justification for it was political pandering in a swing state. But the election is over, and the blue team lost. What is the point of doing it now?

The Democrats need to position themselves to take advantage of the unpopularity of Trump’s tariffs. Embracing mindless protectionism in the dying days of the Biden presidency is a really poor way to do it.

I did a parody of this song for Trump in 2015, but given Musk’s emerging interest in running EU countries, it seems even more appropriate today.

ELON MUSK JUST WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD

Welcome to your life.

There’s no turning back.

Even while he sleeps

He will find you.

He builds spaceships and Tesla cars.

He wants to move mankind to Mars.

Elon Musk just wants to rule the world.

__________

It’s by his design.

It’s without remorse.

It’s all his to decide

And you can’t stop him.

America’s too small for him.

The EU’s next; its future’s dim.

Elon Musk just wants to rule the world.

________________

Parody of “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” by Tears for Fears.

Eight years ago, Trump irrevocably ripped it with half of America with his “American Carnage” speech. Does he intend to do it again? Will he rewrite the history of 1/6/21 on the steps of the Capitol? Will he order blue America to get behind him, or else? Will he just give us a recycled campaign speech? Or will he make some effort to reach out to the millions of people who didn’t vote for him?

The speech will set the tone for his presidency. My guess is that you will see elements of all of the above, but that the overall effect will be very dark, and the blue team will be completely turned off again.

There are two semi-plausible arguments for universal tariffs. The first is that the reconstruction of America’s industrial base is the cornerstone of the Godly Society and will make America more powerful and self-sufficient again; in other words, it is an effort at an economy based on import substitution. The second, less broad argument is that a universal tariff is required to keep China from circumventing levies imposed solely on its products by moving the final stages of product assembly to other countries. In this argument, the universal tariff is a regrettable necessity, not a positive good. Does either hold water?

As I’ve explained before, attempts at autarky inevitably lead to inflation, inefficiency, and uncompetitive businesses. The second argument basically suggests that it is OK to increase the costs of a vast number of imports that have no connection with China in order to hit the ones that do. That is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

Trump 1.0 inherited a sound economy from Obama, juiced it slightly with a tax cut that was supposed to (but didn’t) create an investment boom, and took the credit for everything, at least until the pandemic intervened. Trump 2.0 will also have the benefit of an economy that is the envy of the world, and he will certainly take the credit again. But in one respect, conditions will be different this time.

The bulk of the Trump 2.0 tax cut will just avoid a tax increase baked into the initial legislation. When it has been approved–and it will be–Americans won’t feel anything. Trump’s boasts about the largest tax cut in history will fall on deaf ears.

If he goes for the universal tariff, however, or if he starts imposing levies that jack up the price of vegetables imported from Mexico, the public will feel it immediately.

The handwriting was on the wall. The polls were terrible, and he wasn’t getting any younger. And so, Biden decided to withdraw in the summer of 2023, and to throw his support to Harris.

You might have thought that the result would be a genuinely competitive primary and an outsider nominee, but that did not happen; Harris won over the party very quickly, and her nomination became a formality before the end of the year. Why? Because the Democrats had been united behind Biden–the left was as invested in his record as the center–so it had no viable alternative. The only possible change candidate was someone from the left, but Warren and Sanders were too old, and in any event, proposals for additional spending would have been rejected by the electorate as unrealistic and inflationary.

The bottom line with the 2024 election is that the Democrats lost it when the public decided the economy was much worse than it was during the Trump years. That happened long before Biden’s capacity became a pressing campaign issue. It is of little consolation to the left that the public was wrong, particularly if you throw 2020 into the mix, as you logically should.

Imagine this as the plot for a new Bond movie–the richest man in the world, a ruthless eccentric with an obsession with the letter X and a hearty contempt for common people, uses his vast wealth and his ownership of satellites and a social media company to gain control of the world. His objective is to kill off everyone who doesn’t meet his high standards and to move the rest–the new master race–to Mars, where he will serve as the absolute ruler. Fortunately, 007 stops him just in time.

Sounds kind of plausible in today’s world, right? Except that Elon doesn’t even have complete control of America yet, he hasn’t expressed an interest in annihilating most of mankind, and there is no 007 to save us from him.

Netanyahu is in the middle of his criminal trial. Marine LePen’s is scheduled to start in, I believe, March. Bolsonaro will probably follow at some time this year. Trump’s legal problems have been well documented. Is it a coincidence that all of these people are prominent right-wing populists?

They would say no; they are all victims of a corrupt liberal establishment. How wildly different countries wind up with liberal establishments that behave in the same way is something of a mystery to me. The left would also say no, but ground that opinion in the right’s belief that power, ideology, and the cult of personality override respect for the law. That hypothesis is more plausible.

Trump insisted during the campaign that his tariffs would not result in higher prices because foreigners paid them. As a result, he has done nothing to prepare his supporters for the inflation that is bound to come.

What will he do when prices increase? Will he simply deny that it is happening? Will he threaten businesses for doing what comes naturally? Or will he just order his critics to shut up?

Trump’s cabinet appointments and public statements since the election have given me little new information about his plans for Iran and Ukraine. His comments about tariffs have been all over the place. His “deportation czar” has been forceful, but he hasn’t said anything about building huge camps, using the military for unlawful purposes, denying deportees due process, or violating court orders. But what do Trump’s actions tell us about the likelihood that the state will be mobilized to attack his enemies?

Patel, Gaetz (before he gave up), and Hegseth are exactly the people you would hire if you wanted to unleash the military, the FBI, and the DOJ against the left. All of the warning lights are flashing on that issue. It would be a mistake to assume that liberal democracy is out of danger just because Trump’s appointments to some other cabinet positions are relatively normal.

Roberts sent Trump a clear message that he had better not violate court orders in his year-end report yesterday. This presumably was a response to comments made by Vance over the years to the effect that conservative reverence for the law would have to be selective. Should we be reassured by this?

Two observations are pertinent here. First of all, given Trump’s experience with the law over the last year, including the immunity decision, it is unlikely he will be intimidated by a mere shot across his bow. Second, Roberts, as I’ve said many times, resembles Mitch McConnell, whose barking at Trump has always been much more menacing than his bite. Don’t be surprised if the Chief Justice uses empty rhetorical flourishes to uphold the majesty of the rule of law but gives Trump most of what he wants, regardless of how extreme his agenda is, in order to avoid conflict with MAGA.