Month: March 2025

Early in Trump’s first term, Steve Bannon told the world he was Thomas Cromwell to Trump’s Henry VIII. I was so offended by the analogy that I devoted a lengthy post to it; Bannon is no Cromwell, and while Trump shares some of Henry’s worst qualities, he has none of the best ones. In the end, Bannon was expelled from Trump’s inner circles, Trump accomplished very little in office, and the analogy went away.

Trump 2.0, as many predicted, is a completely different beast. The obvious difference between the two is the presence of Elon Musk, who brings tremendous energy and focus to the task of destroying America as we knew it. It would be fair, then, to apply the Cromwell analogy to Musk.

The EU is suddenly beset by enemies. Putin threatens it militarily and, to a lesser extent, ideologically; the Chinese want to swamp it with imports and neuter it politically; and now Trump wants to turn it into a vassal state. Where is this going, in the long run?

I don’t see the EU submitting to Trump. My best guess is that we will see two important developments: first, the EU will become intensely protectionist; and second, the Germans will build nuclear weapons and offer their use to Europe as a whole. Given the fraught historical relationship between the Germans and Russians, this will present a real danger to Putin if he pushes too hard.

The left, very understandably, is angry. It wants to do something. It doesn’t have the votes to do much, but shutting down the government is something. Therefore, it must be done.

Except that the Democrats are the party of superego and constructive government, unlike the Republicans, who are the party of nihilism and id. Just doing something may feel good in the short run, but it can make matters worse later. The extremists in the GOP prove this all the time.

Schumer got my memo. His arguments in favor of voting for the bill are the same as mine. It’s perfectly OK for most of the party to disagree, because it leads to the least bad outcome; the Democrats as a whole oppose the bill, but it passes, anyway.

There is a right way and a wrong way to oppose Trump and Musk. The right way is through the judicial system and in the court of moderate public opinion. The wrong way is to shoot yourself in the foot to give the base a temporary high.

Mike Johnson managed to wrangle enough hardline Republican votes to pass his stopgap legislation without blue team help. It is a feat that escaped him and Kevin McCarthy for two years. Why was this time different? Has Johnson learned political skills that he didn’t have before?

No. The difference is that Johnson can tell the hardliners with a straight face that Trump will impound any spending they don’t like, so the bottom-line figure in the legislation is meaningless. He couldn’t do that as long as Biden was in the White House.

Note that this trick won’t work when the negotiations over tax cuts begin. It probably won’t work with Medicaid, either.

In its initial phases in the Middle Ages, the essence of feudalism was a contract: the ownership of land in exchange for a specified amount of military assistance. Before long, this morphed into a slightly more flexible relationship: services of a variety of kinds and complete loyalty in exchange for protection. That’s how the mob works today. Not coincidently, it is at the heart of Trump’s view of foreign policy.

Ukraine, facing an enormous deficit in manpower and resources, is eager to be Trump’s vassal. But unlike, say, Canada or Mexico, Trump doesn’t want Ukraine as a vassal state; he wants an alliance with Putin, and Ukraine stands in the way. That is why he is so eager to make peace; he doesn’t want to fulfil his side of the feudal contract.

The Democrats have a dilemma on their hands. If they don’t provide enough support for the stopgap bill to pass, the government will shut down. They will be blamed for it; there is no obvious exit ramp; some employees will have to work indefinitely without pay; and the public will be denied necessary services. If they do, however, the base will be upset, and they will send a message that impoundment is acceptable. As of today, it appears that they have chosen Option #1. Is there any way out of the dilemma?

Yes–they can agree privately to divide appropriately on the issue. A few senators who won’t be vulnerable to primary challenges can vote for the stopgap package, while the vast majority votes against it. This approach would preserve the principle that the blue team opposes impoundment while providing the few necessary votes to keep the government open.

After all, shutting down the government is the CL dream. From their perspective, it’s even better than impoundment.

Years ago, I had a beautiful Australian Shepherd named–you guessed it–Cromwell. Cromwell was an alpha male. One day, my wife and I were talking to a neighbor who owned a smaller dog named Dallas. Dallas got excited and peed on my wife’s foot. Cromwell responded by standing over Dallas and peeing on him. The message was unmistakable.

That is the spirit that inspired the DOGE personnel cuts. They aren’t about making government more efficient; in the short run, they will certainly reduce levels of service, and there are no guarantees about what happens in the long run. They aren’t about saving money; the savings are miniscule. No, the point of the cuts is to prove to federal employees that Donald Trump owns their souls, so they had better not try to obstruct them the way they did in his last term. He’s the alpha; they’re nobody.

That’s the message to Canada, Mexico, and the EU, too.

With the exception of a handful of issues–hatred of trans people and tax cuts for the wealthy come to mind–the GOP now has no fixed views on anything; it is simply a vehicle to provide unqualified support for whatever Trump wants at any given time. That works as long as Trump is in power and is popular. But what happens if and when he becomes unpopular? What happens when he’s gone?

No possible Trump successor can do the weave the way he does. The party will have to make some serious decisions about what it believes and actually stick to them. That process will be entertaining, to say the least.

The markets are having a difficult time figuring out where Trump is going on tariffs. Are they leverage or an effort to create a new economy? Are they intended to be temporary or permanent? The public doesn’t know.

In reality, the story is different with each tariff. Here is a guide for you:

1. As with the DOGE staff cuts, the tariffs on Canada are nothing more than a display of personal dominance. They make no sense either as an economic measure or as leverage in a war against drug gangs.
2. The tariffs on Mexico are also motivated by the desire to show he’s the boss, but closing a back door for Chinese imports and fighting drug gangs also figure here.
3. The steel and aluminum tariffs are intended to be permanent. Trump wants to revive domestic manufacturing in those fields.
4. The Chinese tariffs are leverage for a deal that will result in managed trade. The terms of the future deal may also extend to geopolitical issues.
5. The coming reciprocal tariffs are supposed to be the springboard for the Godly Society. They may change somewhat over time, but expect them to remain in place for the entirety of Trump’s term.

On the one hand, you see the advent of the knowledge-based economy, which devalues the physical skills of men and gives unprecedented opportunities to women. On the other hand, the culture has not evolved to permit men to become subordinate spouses. Under these conditions, of course you are going to have fewer babies. Why would women agree to be the primary wage-earner and do the bulk of the household chores and the nurturing?

The right has opted for three different solutions to this problem. On occasion, it has swallowed its principles and authorized more public spending to support families. The peculiar MAGA cocktail of tariffs and deportations is intended to lead to the Godly Society, which will bring back supposedly manly manufacturing jobs and permit women to stay home and have babies. Finally, there is the coercion option. By all accounts, we are starting to see that in China; expect that to intensify in the years to come.

You will note that what is missing here is the obvious solution–to encourage men to do more work around the house. That is because the right’s identity is soaked in testosterone and traditional gender roles. The right cannot advocate for an approach that might actually work without destroying its own self-image.

As with so many things, Trump has done a 180 on crypto. Once a skeptic, he now wants to minimize regulations and make America the crypto powerhouse of the world. What this means, of course, is that he will be blamed the next time there is some sort of a huge scandal and investor confidence collapses whether it has anything to do with him or not.

If you don’t believe me, ask Javier Milei.

God, in his infinite wisdom, has decreed that Elon Musk’s soul should be run through a woodchipper as punishment for his sins. Elon is indignant.

ELON: It’s not fair! I was your faithful servant!

GOD: Give me five reasons in writing why your soul shouldn’t be destroyed. Just kidding. Why do you call yourself my servant?

ELON: I supported your agent, Donald Trump.

GOD: Why in the world do you call Trump my agent? He’s a despicable man.

ELON: You saved him from the assassin. It was your will that he become president again.

GOD: How do you know that?

ELON: Trump says so. Besides, it’s just common sense.

GOD: I work in mysterious ways, Elon. Never forget that. You don’t know what my plan is for Trump and America.

ELON: He’s doing your bidding. All of the Christians in America love him.

GOD: He hates most of America. He enjoys inflicting pain on people. He just wants to show people he’s the boss. Do you consider those to be Christian virtues?

ELON: They must be, because you approved it.

GOD: You enjoy inflicting pain on people, too. I’ve seen the picture of you with the chainsaw.

ELON: They’re in the way. You can’t make progress without hurting a few people. That’s just the way it is. Creative destruction is a good thing. It’s your will.

GOD: I know you like to break things. Those things, and those people, are mine, too. They matter to me as much as you do.

ELON: That doesn’t make sense. The future of mankind depends on geniuses like me. Everyone else is just along for the ride.

GOD: There it is–the sin of pride.

ELON: I have a lot to be proud of. Thanks to me, mankind will go to Mars one day.

GOD: What’s wrong with Earth? And why did you help ruin it?

ELON: I didn’t. I built Teslas to save the planet. That should count in my favor.

GOD: You built Teslas to make money. Then you supported a man who did his best to stop the transition to electric cars and promote the use of fossil fuels. Your record on the environment is mixed at best. Your business acumen is questionable, too. Why would you deliberately offend the half of America that would actually consider buying an electric car?

ELON: I was the richest man on the planet. What do you know about making money?

GOD: I heard that you want to create a master race on Mars that will be run by your progeny. Is that true?

ELON: Absolutely! Even if you destroy my soul, my genes will live on! I will be the ruler of Mars through my children and grandchildren!

GOD: So now you want to be me. I’ve heard enough. Crank up the woodchipper! (Elon screams in terror as the machine revs up)

Christopher Rufo will admit that systemic racism existed in the United States for centuries. He will also concede that it is reasonable to assume that some of the effects of that condition still linger to this day. He is adamant, however, that civil rights legislation must be applied in a completely colorblind way, and he notes that some of his allies even want to repeal the Civil Rights Act. Why?

As far as I can tell, there are only three possible arguments supporting the Rufo position. The first one, to deny that slavery and segregation had any lingering negative impacts on black people, is ludicrous; Rufo clearly doesn’t embrace it. The second one is that applying civil rights legislation specifically to assist black people, while historically understandable, was unacceptable even in the 1960s because it infringed on the liberties of innocent white people. The third is that, while affirmative action might have been appropriate as a temporary measure in the 1960s and 1970s, its day has passed. That appears to be the primary rationale used by the Supreme Court, albeit without much legal justification.

Does Rufo support #2 or #3? I couldn’t really tell from the Douthat interview.

In a fairly pathetic effort to convince us that he is applying pressure to Putin as well as Ukraine, Trump said today that: (1) he is ready to impose tariffs and sanctions on Russia, if necessary; and (2) he has threatened Putin with something in private that he can’t discuss.

Are you impressed? Well, just consider that: (1) Russia doesn’t sell us anything; (2) the only meaningful sanctions would result in an increase in gas prices, so Trump won’t do it; and (3) anything he says about private discussions with Putin are probably as truthful and meaningful as his secret plan to destroy IS.

Ross Douthat correctly notes that there aren’t enough right-wing academics in America to turn our universities away from liberalism–in other words, as I’ve noted before, you can “reform” New College, but not UF–so he wonders how Christopher Rufo plans to impose his will on them. Rufo responds, more or less, by saying that the federal government can and should use its immense financial leverage to wreck elite universities as they currently exist. It will then be up to them to find some sort of satisfactory solution to the ideology problem.

This is the Musk approach–move fast, break things, and hope the system can figure out a way to adapt. And if it can’t? The country loses one of its greatest assets and gets nothing in return.