After the announcement regarding the tariff pause with China, Scott Bessent explained that a decoupling of the two economies was undesirable, and that America’s objective was simply to protect economic activity that was tied closely to national security.
Well, that’s not going to get us to the Godly Society. And you thought Joe Biden was out of the White House!
Trump announced today that he was imposing tough new tariffs on the Vatican. When asked why, he explained that he had to do something about the Vatican’s huge trade surplus. The tariff would make America rich again.
Pope Leo protested, noting that the Vatican had no manufacturing, and that the trade surplus came purely from religious tourism. Trump responded by demanding that the Vatican buy American fighter jets for two purposes: to eliminate the deficit; and to prepare for an international crusade to be led by American believers against seculars, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists.
David French argues that the new Pope and the Catholic Church do not belong to any American political party. Is he right?
Historically, no; Christian Democrats were the predominant faction within the GOP for most of my lifetime. Trump has changed all of that, however; MAGA is the antithesis of “compassionate conservatism,” which is the best succinct description of CD ideology you can find. As a result, the CDs have either turned into Reactionaries (e.g., Rubio and Vance) or Democrats.
And so, for now, French is right. Could that change in the future? Only after Trump leaves the scene and the Reactionaries lose their grip on the GOP.
A note to my readers: I will be on vacation until Friday. Regular posting will resume on Saturday.
Stephen Miran was asked by an NYT interviewer about Trump’s plans to provide more housing. He responded by citing the administration’s commitment to deregulation. He was then asked whether Trump had any intention of incentivizing deregulation at the state and local level. His answer, in a nutshell, was no; the federal government would provide an example, but that was all.
There you have it. The Trump “plan,” in reality, is to deport millions of immigrants, millions of whom work in the construction industry, while imposing tariffs on building materials and driving up interest rates. That should certainly do the trick.
Trump has apparently united Iranian public opinion behind the regime by announcing that the Persian Gulf would be renamed the “Arabian Gulf.” This, of course, comes after elections in Canada and Australia in which public loathing of him played a decisive role in favor of the left.
Trump, Bannon, and Musk believe in an international coalition of nationalists. They are creating one, but not the one they had in mind.
During the Biden years, America acted as a party–an ally of Ukraine–in the war. After his inauguration, Trump made it clear that America no longer had any interest in the outcome of the war and simply wanted to end it. That shifted his position from a party to that of a mediator.
To the surprise of nobody but Trump and Vance, America’s efforts at mediation have failed. Trump is now talking about enforcing new economic sanctions on Russia in order to impose the settlement of his choosing. In other words, he is threatening to become an arbitrator.
It won’t work; there are no new sanctions available to us that will force Putin to stop fighting. The only way we can facilitate a fair settlement is by rearming Ukraine, thereby persuading Putin that his ultimate objectives are unattainable–in other words, by becoming a party again.
The Israelis are planning a massive new incursion into Gaza. They intend to herd the civilians into a small space in the southern part of the strip, take control of aid distribution, and annihilate everyone and everything else outside the protected area. It sounds a lot like the plan I proposed about a year ago, except that my suggestion regarding the generous treatment of civilians doesn’t appear to be one of its features.
What does this mean? It is certainly motivated in part by Bibi’s continuing desire to keep the extreme right happy and himself in power. It may well foreshadow an indefinite occupation and an effort to annex large chunks of Gaza. What it undoubtedly means is that Bibi has lost hope that Trump will attack Iran in the near future. There is no way he would put this much effort into Gaza with an Iran war on the horizon.
Here are my thoughts:
Everything I have read about Leo suggests that the profile of him in my previous post was correct. I’m ambivalent about his name; on the one hand, it sounds too much like Louis XIV, and the only Leo I knew before this morning was the uninspiring Medici Pope Leo X; on the other hand, it appears that Leo XIII was the kind of centrist, transitional, pastoral leader that I expect the new pope to be.
Not even the cardinals know who amongst them will be the next pope, so I will not hazard a guess. I will, however, predict that he will be a centrist with something to offer to everyone: to the right, more tolerance of the Latin Mass and an end to Francis’ trial balloons; and to the progressives, a promise to build bridges and vocally oppose the use of cruelty as a weapon against the poor and oppressed, most notably immigrants.
In other words, don’t expect Trump or Vance to be wearing a cardinal’s hat anytime soon.
It’s easy to forget now, but Joe Biden took office with the intention of being FDR for the 21st century. His efforts to overthrow the dollar store economy and the McConnell Project were defeated by inflation, the lack of votes in the Senate, and an increasingly conservative judiciary. As a result, neither he nor Harris could run convincingly as a change candidate, and his record, rightly or not, did not impress the American people. The Trump victory was the inevitable result.
Trump is trying to destroy the McConnell Project from a completely different angle. That leaves the Democrats with a difficult choice in the event we have fair elections in 2028. Should they attempt to assemble the widest possible coalition–including business interests who hate the tariffs–in order to bring back the status quo ante, including McConnell’s limitations on legislation and the use of executive power? Or should they use the opening created by Trump to reach for more fundamental change? This would mean completely eliminating the filibuster and ignoring unfavorable rulings from the Supreme Court.
We have a long way to go between now and then, but that will be the fundamental issue during the primaries.
Bessent and Greer are scheduled to meet with Chinese officials in a few days to discuss trade issues. What can we expect?
Here are my thoughts:
Trump comes down to the Oval Office, where Elon is packing up his stuff.
M: How’s the most powerful man in the world?
T: Great! The Houthis just bent the knee to me, like everyone else! How’s the richest man in the world?
M: Things have been better. The value of my car company has plummeted. I have to get back to my day job.
T: Well, I’m doing the best I can for you. I bought a Tesla, and I’m sending billions in contracts to SpaceX. And anyone who vandalizes a Tesla is being prosecuted for a hate crime.
M: Much appreciated.
T: I’m sorry to see you go. We sure raised a lot of hell together, didn’t we?
M: Absolutely! The deep state will never be the same. Now it knows you’re the boss. It won’t get in the way again.
T: That’s right. People thought it was about saving money, but it was really about dominance. Now those bureaucrats know I’m the man. They won’t forget it soon. You helped make sure of that.
M: That said, this country does have a problem with debt, and we only scratched the surface. You need to go after the big bucks.
T: Like what? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
M: The defense budget, too. Those four are where the money is.
T: I can’t do that. My voters rely on entitlement programs, and there are too many hawks in Congress to ignore.
M: Then the debt will continue to be a problem no matter what OMB tries. And I’m concerned about the tariffs. Are you trying to turn America into Peron’s Argentina, or are you using the tariffs as leverage to create more free trade? I can’t tell.
T: That’s my way, Elon. I like to keep people guessing. Keeping my options open helps keep our players on side. It also makes me the center of attention, which is very important.
M: But investors need to know what’s going on, even if the voters don’t. You can’t make America great without investment.
T: They’ll figure it out eventually. So will you. (Elon leaves)
Trump’s frenetic activity has invited comparisons with FDR’s 100 days. How do the two stack up?
FDR took office during the depths of the Great Depression. The American economy was on its knees, and there was no meaningful federal safety net. Using his massive majority in Congress, he pushed through legislation that addressed some of the worst impacts of the downturn. He also worked hard to regain the waning confidence of the American people. His first 100 days were a success.
Trump took office at a time when unemployment was at four percent and inflation was easing. Instead of pursuing legislation, he signed a blizzard of executive orders that were designed to wreck American institutions, violate the Constitution, and amass power to an unprecedented degree. His changing rationales for tariffs damaged consumer and investor confidence and threatened to send the economy into a slump. Does that sound like a success to you?
Scott Bessent argues that tariffs, when combined with tax cuts and deregulation, will make investment in America great again. Is he right?
Take the example of the president of a German car manufacturer. His company already makes some cars in the US for the American market, but that clearly isn’t enough for Trump. It sounds like Bessent wants him to move all of his operations to the US and export to the EU. Is that plausible? Would the EU really permit that to happen? How would he find a large enough pool of underemployed skilled workers in the US to operate the plants? What would happen to his extensive supply chain in Germany? How can he rely on Trump’s tariffs remaining stable when the rules can change at any time and for any reason?
In short, the answer is no. To make matters worse, Bessent seems to be assuming that America’s trade partners will sign agreements to let their manufacturing base be hollowed out. That isn’t going to happen, either; if the mass migration of industry to the US is going to occur, it will be the result of the shock-and-awe reciprocal tariff scheme, not the deals we have been promised in the interest of American export businesses and consumers.