Author: hamilton1788

The preliminary information suggests that holiday spending has been unexpectedly robust in spite of the struggling real economy. It has been fueled, not by right-wing blue-collar workers, but by relatively affluent people, primarily from blue states, with hefty investments in the soaring stock market.

In other words, the dollar store economy has come roaring back, which is exactly what Trump supposedly is trying to avoid. The political survival of Republicans consequently depends on the continued spending of the information economy elites that Trump purports to despise.

That’s a paradox. It’s also a lesson, if you take it the right way.

Consider the humble t-shirt. Labor costs make up most of the price, so it can’t be made in America. Does that present a problem?

To most people, no. There is no national security angle to t-shirt production, so the national objective should be to help consumers by keeping the costs down to the maximum extent possible. But to Donald Trump, the countries making the shirts are stealing money from Americans. He thinks that all trade deficits are a problem. What is his plan to deal with it?

He is putting tariffs on them. To what practical end? It doesn’t help America create a system of imperial preference, it doesn’t drive production back to our country, and it doesn’t impact China at all. What’s the point?

Donald Trump is a reactionary on most economic issues, but he’s all in on AI. This is partly due to his strong connections with the techno-aristocracy and partly because he sees AI as the prize in an arms race with the Chinese.

AI creates economic and public welfare issues that greatly concern the reactionary base, but Trump doesn’t seem to care. They will undoubtedly be discussed at some length in the 2028 GOP primaries. In the short run, the soaring cost of electricity due to data center demands and the negative impacts on entry-level jobs give the blue team some opportunities with populist workers; going beyond that kind of criticism will be unnecessary in 2026. By 2028, however, the Democratic nominee will need a plan that encourages the development of AI, but subject to controls that will prevent it from becoming the tool of a handful of capitalists at the expense of everyone else.

Donald Trump famously told the crowd he hated his opponents at Charlie Kirk’s funeral–not that anyone doubted it. J.D. Vance embraced Trump and MAGA when, as he put it, he found that they hated the right people. That’s the glue that keeps the GOP together–hatred of the left.

So what will Trump and J.D. do when times get tough and MAGA starts to splinter? Double down on the hatred, of course, which doesn’t sound great for the rest of us.

Trump’s swagger continues to appeal to some Gen Z men regardless of their economic circumstances. Otherwise, the situation with younger voters is similar to that with Hispanics. Everything about Trump is appalling to young women, and the cohorts of younger men who voted for the economy of 2019 in 2024 are disappointed, as they were bound to be.

It is actually somewhat comforting that American swing voters are transactional. It is normal for the electorate to make decisions based on the perceived performance of the economy. That suggests the country is not as polarized as the ideologues on social media would have you believe, and that running on competence and results is not a fool’s errand.

The GOP in general, and Trump in particular, made substantial inroads with Hispanics in 2024, giving rise to the belief that a permanent realignment had occurred. The recent election and plenty of polling tells us otherwise. What is going on here?

The combination of the brutal immigration raids and Trump’s economic failures, of course. Some Hispanics were willing to overlook Trump’s attacks on them as long as he delivered the economy of 2019, but that hasn’t happened. The realignment was a mirage, as I suspected it was from the beginning.

Mitch McConnell argues that Trump should act as an ally of Ukraine, not a mediator. Is his analysis correct?

Yes–it is the same point I have made many times before in this blog. It is worth noting, however, that a good mediator is completely neutral and makes no effort to strongarm any of the parties. In Trump’s case, he often appears to be taking Putin’s side when he attempts to negotiate with the Ukrainians.

We fought through 2025.

The Constitution still survives.

Our politics remain insane

But at least there was no hurricane.

_____________

We had a safe and healthy year.

We cherished those that we hold dear.

Darcy’s fine; she just turned eight.

She’s still a puppy, which is great.

____________

We live a quiet sunbird life.

Just me and Darcy and my wife.

We watch the seasons come and go

And leave BE before the snow.

_____________

We took a trip to the NC coast.

The history there I enjoyed the most

We also drove to the Finger Lakes

Where the past’s alive, and the scenery’s great.

____________

Next year could go either way.

Which path we’ll choose, I cannot say.

Our freedoms still are under threat.

I fear we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Over a million Americans died from Covid-19. Public health officials, faced with conditions not experienced in nearly a century, made mistakes. As a result, experts in a wide range of fields lost their credibility; to Donald Trump and his followers, any anonymous guy on the internet selling snake oil has as much claim to be an expert as someone with genuine credentials. Was this an elite failure?

Yes, but with some reservations. First, the federal government and the CDC were dealing with imperfect information in real time, so it is hardly surprising that they made mistakes. Second, the American experience was not unique. Third, the system succeeded in creating vaccines in record time in response to the pandemic. It isn’t the fault of the experts that foolish people refused to take them.

What do we have to be thankful for today? For the events that haven’t occurred yet. The economy may be struggling against Trump-induced headwinds, but it hasn’t collapsed. The Russians haven’t broken through in Ukraine. Trump hasn’t used the Insurrection Act. We still, for the most part, have First Amendment rights. Taiwan hasn’t been traded for soybeans. The lower courts are still putting up resistance. And so on.

Will I still be able to say any of this next year? I honestly have no idea.

The 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession gave rise to populist movements on both sides of the spectrum. Occupy Wall Street, on the left side, argued that the crash had been caused by bankers, who hadn’t been sufficiently chastised for their greed; the Tea Party, on the right side, insisted that the real villain was a government that was too big and too willing to bail out hapless homeowners. Did the existence of critics on both sides prove the Great Recession was an example of elite failure?

The GR was the result of three massive failures. First, millions of Americans, including realtors, bankers, and homeowners, got too greedy; as the saying goes, if something looks too good to be true, it probably is. Second, the government, largely as a result of GOP-driven deregulation, was unable to put a stop to the creation of a financial system that was getting out of control. Finally, financial institutions and ratings agencies made mistakes that made it impossible for investors to properly assess risk. The opacity of the system created by all of those actors caused it to crumble.

In short, there was elite failure in 2008 and thereafter, but some blame can also be attached to millions of Americans who cannot reasonably be described as elite.

Ross Douthat thinks the state of the economy is Trump’s greatest political problem; even if the tariffs ultimately reinvigorate American manufacturing, the benefits will likely be felt long after Trump leaves office. I agree. But Douthat has nothing to say about the impacts of the deportations, which is of particular interest in light of the position taken by the Pope and the American bishops. Douthat can’t argue that only a rogue heretic Pope had any interest in protecting immigrants at this point. So what is going on here?

There are a number of possibilities. Perhaps Ross is just too embarrassed by the issue to discuss it in public. Maybe he thinks it is just a sideshow. Maybe he thinks the problems are temporary and that the system will improve over time. My best guess is that he believes Trump has a mandate for his regime, so criticizing it after the fact is inappropriate.

Some Trump-aligned Republicans like to argue that the Iraq War had as much support from Democrats as from Republicans. By that theory, George W. Bush was a proto-Democrat, and the war was another example of the failure of the entire elite, not just the GOP. Is that position justified?

No. Bush and Cheney pushed the war relentlessly on the political class. While it is true that some prominent Democrats voted for the war, it was not their idea, and they did so mostly out of fear of future retribution from the electorate. The only meaningful opposition to the war in its early stages came from the more principled elements of the left; what is now the populist right, including Trump, supported Bush enthusiastically until it became clear much later that the war was a mistake. The responsibility for the war consequently rests with Bush and the GOP, not the entire elite.

The terms of China’s admission to the WTO were negotiated by both Democrats and Republicans. There was an elite consensus that bringing China into the system would make it more democratic and less dangerous. The consensus position, as it turned out, was completely wrong. As a result, you can reasonably argue that some of America’s economic problems were the result of elite failure.

But there are three major caveats to that position. First, American consumers have enjoyed relatively cheap products for two decades, a benefit that is often dismissed today, but should not be. Second, the elite consensus broke down when it came time to compensate the losers of globalization; that was a partisan issue. Finally, the numbers don’t lie; technological change accounted for far more of the loss of American industrial jobs than trade with China. You can even see this occurring in the Chinese economy today.

Three observations are pertinent here:

1. The finding that Halligan was improperly appointed doesn’t have the same emotional appeal as a finding that the prosecutions were vindictive. The practical impacts, however, may well be greater, as these appointment issues are popping up all over the country.
2. The opinion contains lots of citations to writings from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. You can view this as irony or an attempt to prevent SCOTUS from getting involved.
3. Trump, Bondi, and the DOJ should be embarrassed. Will they be? Probably not.