Month: November 2025

Young progressives see Mamdani’s victory as the beginning of a golden age for themselves and NYC’s downtrodden. Many Republicans, for their part, can’t wait to tie the entire Democratic Party to Mamdani’s “socialism.” Will either of them get their wish?

Probably not. Whatever the merits of Mamdani’s progressive agenda items, he can’t make most of them happen without help from Albany that is unlikely to materialize. As to the GOP, tying moderate Democrats to Mamdani won’t work, because what happens in NYC has little practical impact elsewhere. Only Fox watchers are going to buy that argument, and they aren’t swing voters in 2026.

Spanberger and Sherrill were roundly criticized for lacking a positive vision and putting too much emphasis on Trump, but it worked. Will the same tactics prevail in 2026 and 2028, assuming we have free and fair elections?

In 2026, yes. Trump is the factor that unites and inspires the entire Democratic coalition. Presenting a new, positive vision of America is potentially divisive. The easier and more successful alternative is to limit the discussion to complaints about the unsatisfactory status quo.

In 2028, no. In general terms, there will be two competing platforms available to blue team primary voters. Moderates will argue for a united front against Trumpism, and a return to the status quo ante to the maximum extent possible; progressives, on the other hand, will insist that the new powers granted to Trump by the Supreme Court should be used to build a more fair and equal America. Who will win that argument? At this point, I have no idea.

Donald Trump hates blue America. He wishes us ill. He bullies us to prove he is the boss. Why wouldn’t blue America come out in force to oppose him, just as the Canadian and Australian voters did? That’s exactly what happened yesterday.

But that is far from the last word on the subject. Trump won’t back down and try to work with his more moderate opponents; he will double down and try to crush them. Just how far is he willing to go? That’s the real question for his presidency.

More than any single person–and that includes his boss–Dick Cheney was responsible for the Iraq war. The war was conceived on false premises and was executed incompetently. We are still feeling the repercussions from Cheney’s failures today, not the least of which revolve around the GOP’s acceptance of “America First.”

But that was not the end of the story. Cheney viewed himself as an heir of Ronald Reagan, not a precursor of Trump. He openly deplored “America First” and Trump’s violations of liberal democratic norms. He had the courage to attack Trump when few others in his party would do so. For that, he deserves our praise.

It’s a mixed legacy, to be sure.

Ezra Klein and the NYT Editorial Board agree; the Democrats need to become a big tent party to win elections. That means tolerating opinions on issues such as trans rights, gun control, and abortion that are anathema to progressives. But the tent can become so big that the party ceases to stand for anything. What blue team values are non-negotiable?

Here is a tentative list:

1. America should subscribe to the MLK/Obama vision of a multi-ethnic liberal democracy that welcomes people of all races, religions, and sexual orientations.
2. Discrimination on the basis of religion or immutable characteristics is wrong.
3. The current welfare state should be protected to the maximum extent possible.
4. We should be looking to create the economy of the future, not to recreate the economy of the past.
5. The immigration system should be humane as well as orderly.
6. America should maintain good relations with other liberal democracies in order to leverage its strength against hostile authoritarian states.
7. America should remain a liberal democracy. The party must resist efforts to create an authoritarian state.

That’s about it. Everything else is open to debate.

The Biden years should have been the high point of Bernie Sanders’ career; after all, the pandemic mitigation spending spree was largely his agenda. The expansion of the welfare state reduced misery dramatically and promoted growth that was the envy of the rest of the world. But it also increased inflation and interest rates, which the country hated. The blue team’s loss in 2024 was the result.

Bernie’s program hasn’t changed. He doesn’t seem to understand that, if the Democrats implement it without funding it, it will result in significant increases in the deficit, interest rates, and inflation, and if they do fund it, the middle class will have to accept large tax increases, because billionaires simply don’t have enough money to pay for such large expansions of the welfare state. Are these outcomes palatable to the American electorate? History says no.

We are starting to see some evidence of resistance to the Trump agenda from GOP senators. Should we take it seriously? Here is my analysis:

1. AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS: The Trump program of deportations and tariffs has always been completely inconsistent with the interests of farmers and ranchers. He’s making it worst by talking about increasing imports of Argentinian beef. The grumbling hasn’t translated into votes, however, and the rural areas are too invested in Trump to oppose him unless the economic problems go on for years, which is possible.
2. FREE TRADE: Ronald Reagan still lives! Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, and Paul are completely opposed to Trump’s arbitrary tariff regime and have had the audacity to say so in public. That could matter if the farmers get mad enough to take action or if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs. Otherwise, Mike Johnson will make sure no such votes take place in the House.
3. FILIBUSTER: This is the biggest one. The GOP senators understand that the McConnell Project gives them an enduring structural advantage, and they don’t want to give it up in Trump’s short-term interests. Don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

On the DOJ head they call Pam.

For her partisanship she’s been slammed.

But Trump has her back

So she stays on attack

Legal norms and procedures be damned.

Virtually all of the toys purchased in America are manufactured in China. Chinese tariffs are going to drive up the cost of them dramatically. Stressed parents will definitely notice, and so will the MSM.

Will Trump get up in front of a camera and argue that American children should sacrifice at Christmas in order to lower the trade deficit? That should win the GOP lots of votes in 2026.

Ross Douthat thinks the Democrats lost in 2024 because they moved too far to the left. That’s too simplistic. Here are the issues that really cost the blue team the election, and where they stand in 2026:

1. INFLATION: Americans blamed Biden, with less justification than they thought, for inflation. Trump promised to reduce costs, but his entire program is built around actions that increase them. This gives the Democrats a huge advantage in 2026.
2. IMMIGRATION: The public wants an immigration system that is both orderly and humane. Biden paid the price for the lack of order; the GOP should be punished for its lack of humanity in 2026.
3. CRIME: Crime had already fallen dramatically by November of 2024 and is continuing to fall. However, the GOP has a structural advantage on this issue; even local news stations in blue cities talk incessantly about violent crime, because it drives up ratings. The blue team needs to do everything it can to bring clarity on this issue, but its expectations shouldn’t get too high.
4. TRANS PEOPLE: The GOP has done about everything it possibly can to oppress trans people over the last few years. I don’t think this issue will resonate as much next year, but the GOP will ride it as far as it can go.

Thus far, consumers have only paid a fairly small fraction of the Trump tariffs. As a result, while inflation has remained stubbornly high, it has not spiked. Surveys indicate that many companies which held the line on prices as long as possible intend to increase them in the future, however. What does that portend for 2026?

Instead of a spike, we will see increased inflation for a longer period of time. This will create higher inflation expectations among consumers in 2026. That’s bad news for Trump, the GOP, and the pundits who think they are being vindicated by the absence of a spike (here’s looking at you, Mr. Cass).

Ross Douthat will concede that the new ballroom may be a bit glitzy and that Trump has shown his customary insensitivity to public taste. In his eyes, however, the ballroom was needed, so the ends justify the means. In fact, Douthat analogizes Trump’s willingness to ignore legal procedures to Ezra Klein’s concept of “abundance.” Is that fair?

This is the sort of argument that undoubtedly drove Klein crazy during the DOGE era (was it really that long ago?) “Abundance” is not about completely disregarding procedures and making random “improvements” at the whim of a man whose tastes run to Saudi chic. It is about methodically changing the process to avoid sclerosis and following it faithfully thereafter.