Month: April 2025

Thomas Friedman says his Chinese friends see an analogy between Trump and Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Does the analogy hold water?

Yes, because both movements were driven by the man at the top, and in each case, the target was the political and intellectual establishment. But there are differences, too. Mao was relying primarily on non-state actors (the Red Guards) and physical violence to get his way; Trump is using the federal government itself and threats of aid cutoffs to assert his dominance.

The biggest difference is that Mao didn’t have to worry about resistance from the judicial system. Whether that will matter in America in the long run remains to be seen.

Surveys indicate that Americans haven’t given up on religion, but support for organized religion is very limited, particularly among young people. Why?

I think there are three reasons. First, religion was for centuries the principal source of color in a grim, monochromatic workday world; today, everyone has an endless source of entertainment in his pocket. Second, Americans find religious rituals with origins in the distant past to be too lame and remote from their experience in the modern world. Third, Christianity is closely associated with angry Trump voters seeking revenge on the rest of America. Who wants to spend Sunday with people like that?

As I noted many times during the campaign and thereafter, Trump voters were divided into two groups: reactionaries embraced his authoritarianism, his tariffs, and his plans to wreck America as we knew it; while business interests and moderates predicted confidently that Trump’s promises were lies, and the new administration would look like the old one. We would bring back the economy of 2019 without threatening the system. Happy days were here again.

One of those groups was bound to be disappointed; it didn’t take long to find out which one. For once, Trump told the truth, just as I predicted. The reactionaries are thrilled; business interests, not so much. Now what?

I don’t see any evidence that Trump’s unconstitutional efforts to amass power and impose his will on America are unpopular with Trump voters as a whole. The tariffs, on the other hand, are hated by business, and they may lose support with the base, as well. If American liberal democracy survives, it may well be due, not to public support for the Constitution, but to the price of foreign consumer goods.

Apart from the filibuster and some limited ability to create publicity, the Democrats have no power in Washington. The judiciary has no resources on its own to enforce the law and the Constitution as written. Trump ignores small demonstrations, and massive ones might invite a military response. What can the blue team actually do to protect liberal democracy under these circumstances?

Trump voters don’t appear to have any concerns about his lawlessness, but they do care about their pocketbooks. The Trump economy, including the red states, depends on blue spending. In all likelihood, a recession is on the way. Do what comes naturally and cut back; in particular, don’t buy anything from any company that is closely associated with the Trump agenda. Then sit back and watch Trump’s polling numbers collapse. He may not care, but his GOP enablers will.

Trump is in the Oval Office when Xi Jinping enters, looking for all the world like a pathetic character from a Dickens novel, on his hands and knees.

XI: Please, Sir.

DT: Oh, it’s you. I’ve been expecting you.

XI: A word, Sir?

DT: What is it, Chinaman? I haven’t got all day. “Fox and Friends” is on in a few minutes.

XI: It’s about the tariffs, Sir.

DT: Of course it is. That’s why I imposed them. What do you want?

XI: (Crawling closer to the Resolute Desk) Please lift them, Sir. I’ll do whatever you want.

DT: It’s about time.

XI: You were right, Sir. You’re always right. And you’re the boss. I know that now.

DT: Damn right I’m the boss.

XI: I’ll do whatever you say, Sir. I’ll kiss your feet.

DT: Prove it. (Xi kisses his foot)

DT: That’s more like it. Now go away. Maybe I’ll lift the tariffs, and maybe I won’t. We’ll see. (Xi leaves)

And then Trump wakes up and finds out that none of this is true.

The biggest nightmare for most GOP members of Congress is a primary opponent supported by Donald Trump. But Lisa Murkowski has already been through that, and she prevailed. So when she talks about her fears, what does she mean?

The answer is obvious–she’s worried about unbounded autocracy enabled by a spineless Congress and unchecked by an ultimately powerless legal system. She has reason.

Back in the 17th century, the heyday of mercantilism, most European nations had absolute monarchies, and even those that didn’t granted monopolies on foreign trade to wealthy, well-connected companies that were effectively arms of the state. Under those conditions, mercantilism makes sense. If you don’t believe me, ask Xi Jinping.

But America and its allies–to the extent it still has any–don’t meet those standards. In liberal democracies, individuals, not the state, are the primary economic actors; the state has no economic interests separate from those of their citizens. As a result, mercantilism for us makes no sense whatsoever.

To put it another way, when Trump says America is getting rich because it is taking in millions in tariffs, what good does that do for you? How does it possibly benefit you if American tax money is going into a federal government fund that won’t be spent on you?

The Trump economic team says that tariffs are a one-off price increase, and will not result in longer-term inflation. Are they right?

As I’ve noted before, tariffs don’t just impact imported goods; they provide an opportunity for domestic competitors to raise their prices in order to increase profits. In addition, it is unlikely that workers will suffer a loss in purchasing power without demanding higher wages. Third, there is no guarantee that any particular level of tariffs will remain stable, given Trump’s penchant for lashing out at anyone who displeases him. Finally, the public is more sensitive to inflation after the experience during the pandemic than it was a few years ago. Surveys indicate that inflation expectations are already high. As a result, the Trump team is probably wrong about the implications of the tariffs.

Of course, if the tariffs drive us into a recession, millions of unemployed workers will be in no position to demand higher wages. That’s the “optimistic” view of inflation.

The latest theory I have read regarding Trump’s chaotic tariff tactics is that the rest of the world, once suitably browbeaten into mutually beneficial agreements, will then ally itself with us against China. Does the theory make sense, and can it succeed?

The central tenets of “‘America First” are that: America has interests, but no friends; the point of negotiations is to dominate your adversary, not to reach agreements that benefit both sides; and the objective of the trade war is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US and eliminate bilateral trade deficits, not just to contain China and protect vital supply chains. None of this is consistent with “friendshoring,” which assumes that trade deficits will continue, but with friendly countries instead of China.

What the commentators are suggesting is the accomplishment of Biden’s ends of flexible containment and “friendshoring” through Trumpian bullying. It cannot work, and it probably won’t be tried.

Trump is now openly musing about sending convicted criminals who are American citizens to El Salvador. This should set off alarm bells, because if he’s willing to do something that blatantly unconstitutional, it would be a relatively small step to use El Salvador as a pen for political prisoners on the pretext of some sort of bogus “emergency.”

In spite of his periodic attempts to sound Trumpier-than-thou, Ron DeSantis looks like a dead man walking. The Florida Legislature doesn’t listen to him anymore, and he has nowhere to go after his term expires in 2026. If his wife runs against Trump’s chosen candidate for governor, that is likely to alienate the base even more. Things are looking pretty grim.

But Trump’s tariffs may have thrown him a lifeline. DeSantis has been very vocal about wokeness, but he hasn’t said much about protectionism. That gives him an opening if the tariffs prove to be unpopular; he can continue to beat the drum on wokeness while tying J.D. to the tariffs. It isn’t likely to work, given the doubts the base has about him, but it’s not nothing.

Trump and Liz Truss have more in common than the first three letters of their names. Both of them are reactionaries with a taste for big tax cuts; both proposed unorthodox economic programs that upset investors; and both of them, as a result, imposed “moron premiums” on their markets. Truss was deposed after a few months. Will the same happen to Trump?

No, for several reasons. He has a very strong relationship with the base. He effectively has political and legal immunity for his mistakes. Most importantly, he doesn’t operate in a parliamentary system. There is no practical way for the GOP, or for us, to get rid of him before the end of his term.

Imagine that you are the US president and you want to lose a trade war with China. Here’s how you would do it, in a few simple steps:

1. DON’T PREPARE THE PUBLIC FOR THE IMPACTS OF THE WAR: During the campaign, don’t put anything about tariffs in your commercials; just tell the public to trust you. On the few occasions when you are asked about tariffs, insist that foreigners pay them, not Americans, so there will be no domestic impact.
2. ALIENATE YOUR ALLIES: You will need help from the rest of the world if you want to isolate the Chinese. Make sure you don’t get it by doing everything possible to offend them, and by treating them as no better than China.
3. DON’T PROVIDE A CONSISTENT AND PLAUSIBLE RATIONALE FOR THE TARIFFS: Tell the public, for example, that tariffs will both raise trillions of dollars and encourage import substitution. Those rationales are mutually exclusive.
4. CHANGE COURSE ON A WHIM: Investors crave certainty. Don’t give it to them. Change the tariffs on a daily basis. Any time someone offends you, BOOM! Here’s a side of higher tariffs!

Any resemblance to Trump’s approach to tariffs is purely coincidental, of course.

Conceptually, you can see advantages to demanding direct cash payments from foreign governments to the US Treasury in exchange for protection and the right to trade without tariffs; it would avoid the problems of distributing specific benefits and burdens of the trade agreement to private sector entities. Does that make the Delian League solution plausible?

No, for two reasons. First of all, only an autocratic government with a strong grip on the populace would get away with making such a deal. No electorate in a liberal democracy is going to agree to tax itself in order to make huge payments to Trump’s America. Second, the proceeds would probably wind up in a fund controlled by Trump. Without wise investments over a period of several years, the money would do nothing to revitalize American industry and bring about the Godly Society; in all likelihood, it would just be funneled to Trump’s friends and allies, and struggling American workers would get nothing but small cash handouts.

Trump has once again granted an illegal extension to Tik Tok. You can reasonably expect this saga to go on and on, because Trump believes that keeping Tik Tok on a string gives him leverage against the Chinese. In reality, it works the other way; Tik Tok is an issue of minimal importance, so identifying it as significant actually gives more leverage to Xi.

The situation with the reciprocal tariffs is somewhat similar. Trump intends to use them as leverage for, well, we don’t know exactly what. The trade negotiations are supposed to encompass the whole world and be finished in 90 days to give investors the certainty they crave. In the real world, that deadline will be extended again and again, partly because the job can’t be done that fast when you don’t know what you want, and partly because Trump will be reluctant to surrender his leverage over the entire world just because the markets are in turmoil.