Author: hamilton1788

Trump is now sending the National Guard to Memphis. There is no denying that Memphis has a serious crime problem, and the governor of Tennessee did not object, so this particular intrusion into local governance doesn’t raise constitutional issues. But it does raise a practical question: if the National Guard is really needed to patrol the streets of the city, why didn’t the governor send troops there on his own authority years ago?

The obvious answer is that this is theater intended to give the impression that Donald Trump is Batman, not a serious effort to reduce crime.

In 2012, the GOP nominated Mitt Romney; four years later, it nominated Donald Trump. In an interesting conversation with Ezra Klein in today’s NYT, Ben Shapiro says the dramatic change in tone was due to Obama’s divisive behavior during and after the 2012 election. Is he right?

The argument has some surface plausibility, but I don’t agree with it, for three reasons. First, Obama’s 2012 campaign, which focused on Romney’s support for billionaires against workers, was consistent with Democratic campaigns practically since the beginning of time. Second, Obama did very little that was unusually divisive by anyone’s standards during his second term; most of the actions and events that would have riled the right occurred before the 2012 election. Finally, Romney won in 2012 because he outflanked his opponents to the right on the hot button immigration issue and because his principal opponents were both reactionaries: the social conservative Rick Santorum (think Ted Cruz in 2016 here) and the more secular Trump prequel Newt Gingrich. Trump, on the other hand, ran in an open lane against a group of PBPs and CDs in 2016. His victory was due more to the failure of his opponents to unite against him than to a fundamental change in the GOP electorate.

I have recently read a number of stories about soybean farmers who are hurting bigly as a result of Trump’s mass deportations and Chinese tariff retaliation. What conclusions should we draw from that?

First, that the farmers should have known this was coming, but they voted for Trump anyway, so they aren’t entitled to much sympathy. Second, that Trump will make sure they are receiving bailout payments from the proceeds of his tariffs in the near future. Don’t despair, great American farmers; giant welfare checks backed by our tariff payments and signed by your beloved president will be on the way shortly.

Libertarian tech executives would seem to be unlikely allies of a reactionary, immigrant-hating president. And yet, Big Tech seems to be thriving in the environment created by Trump. Why?

For two reasons. First, Trump has decided on national security grounds to deregulate AI to the maximum extent possible. That runs contrary to the interests of his MAGA followers, but is completely consistent with the interests of Big Tech. Second, as I anticipated, Trump is treating the tech companies as national champions in his trade negotiations. This could ultimately lead to a reduction in regulations and to higher profits overseas, although the EU, for one, is resisting.

Trump would probably approve of an economy similar to that of South Korea that is dominated by a handful of giant companies. That kind of economy would probably be less dynamic than one open to small entrepreneurs, but it would be easier for Trump to control.

The Democrats appear to be coalescing around an extension of Biden’s extra Obamacare tax credits as their ask for keeping the government open. This is not an issue of constitutional significance, but it is extremely popular, and it is already dividing the GOP. Refusing to extend the credits could cost the Republicans several vulnerable House seats. What will Trump do if he is confronted with this demand?

It will be an unpalatable choice. Going along with it is inconsistent with his desire to obliterate Obamacare; it will also offend the CLs in the House. Not going along with it could result in a House controlled by Democrats. Which is the lesser evil?

Trump has a pragmatic streak when it comes to winning elections. My guess is that he will acquiesce, albeit with some kicking and screaming.

I was driving back from my mother’s condo on the day she died when a song that I hadn’t heard for many years started playing in my head. I ignored it at first, but it became louder and louder, and I finally realized what it meant. The song was David Bowie’s “Modern Love,” and the only plausible explanation for it under the circumstances was that it was a message to me from my mother. What else could it be?

We had discussed my plan to go to Paris for Christmas–she was a strong supporter–before she died. Months later, I started getting cold feet about it. One day when I was working on a less expensive alternative, I heard another song I hadn’t heard in many years in my head–“Safe European Home” by The Clash. She was telling me to go to Paris; what else could it mean? We did, and I was grateful.

About a week after my dog Cromwell died, I was driving in my car when I could smell him in my back seat. It lasted for about a minute, then disappeared. It was him; there was no other explanation for the experience.

These are just a few of the connections I have made with deceased members of my family. Sometimes they come through music; sometimes they are manifested through intense, lucid dreams; mostly they are just a strong vibration I feel when I see or hear something. Do they make me unique in some way? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

My advice to my readers is to view experiences such as these with skepticism, but not to dismiss them out of hand. If something happens to you that cannot be explained by reference to the visible world, the source of it has to be elsewhere.

On the once-again President Trump.

His economy’s started to slump.

So he said it was time

To be vocal on crime

But his poll number’s still in the dumps.

Putin sent a number of drones over the Polish border. His spokesman says it was a “mistake.” Since the Russians have a history of engaging in asymmetrical warfare with plausible deniability, there is good reason to doubt their word. What should be done to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

NATO should tell Putin that a specified amount of money from the frozen Russian assets will be permanently seized and handed over to Ukraine for each incursion and each act of vandalism directed at the infrastructure of NATO countries. That should put an end to this nonsense.

Trump argued yesterday that the radical right, unlike the left, is not a problem because it only wants to prevent crime. Is that true?

Absolutely not. The radical right’s actual position is that white Christian men are entitled to a monopoly of political, economic, and social power in America and are justified in using violence to preserve it when other means fail; since this pursuit of power is supposedly legitimate, anyone who opposes it is a “criminal.” Trump’s statement should be viewed as a syllogism: cities are full of black people who don’t support me and hate real America; cities are also overridden with crime; cities are consequently a danger to me and real America; therefore, they must be brought to heel in the name of fighting “crime.”

It is worth noting that the division of America into pure white Anglo-Saxon rural havens and crime-ridden cities full of those other people is an enduring theme of our history. You find it in the Alien and Sedition Acts, in the Know-Nothing movement, and in the KKK, as well. Trump is just carrying on a tradition.

The Democratic Party was divided into two different wings over majority rule in the middle of the 19th century. The group led by Calhoun emphasized the need to protect minority rights (over slavery, of course) through nullification, Supreme Court decisions, and secession, if necessary; the Jacksonian wing, on the other hand, was populist, majoritarian, and nationalist. Do these two wildly different intellectual threads exist in MAGA, over 150 years later?

They do! MAGA is united in its belief that it is entitled to rule on the basis that white Christian men created America, but it is divided on the rationale for that belief. One faction, which was particularly prominent during the Biden years, argues that America is a “republic, not a democracy” and insists that Trump voters–mostly from rural areas, of course–are the only true Americans, and are therefore entitled to run the country regardless of the outcome of any particular election. Trump, on the other hand, identifies with Jackson and maintains that he represents the majority of Americans against a corrupt and self-serving elite; this claim had little empirical basis during his first term, but has more validity now as a result of the outcome of the last election. In practice, Trump is seeking to stack the deck through gerrymandering, attacks on the Voting Rights Act, and spurious executive orders demanding changes to state election laws, but his populist and nationalist rhetoric still puts him in the Jacksonian camp.

The country was run by a self-serving, corrupt elite that showed no interest in the plight of the vast majority of the people. That would change, however; the masses would rise and overthrow the elite. A short period would ensue in which a strongman would destroy the remaining vestiges of the old regime. Once the opponents of the people were converted, deported, or liquidated, there would be a golden age of peace and prosperity.

Is it the dictatorship of the proletariat or the unwoke? You decide.

Kash Patel was hired to weaponize the FBI against Trump’s opponents. He did this by purging the bureau of the competent agents who lacked the appropriate partisan bias. When he was done, there was no one left with the ability to catch the killer of Trump’s friend and ally–at least not yet. As of now, the fruitless hunt was still ongoing.

Sad, but true.

UPDATE: The guy was caught later this morning as a result of a confession to a family member that was ultimately reported to Utah authorities. The FBI wasn’t involved.

An article in today’s NYT tells us that a memorandum has been signed obligating the Japanese government to provide large sums of money for investments directed by Trump. For a period of time, profits from the investments will be shared equally; afterwards, 90 percent will go to the US. News of this more formal version of the agreement isn’t going over well with the public in Asia; the Japanese PM has resigned, and the South Korean government is refusing to use the Japan deal as a template for its own agreement. What should we take from this?

Expect plenty of political turbulence in both countries, including an anti-American backlash and the rise of a right-wing populist opposition. This in turn will lead to friction involving the investments and, in all likelihood, the collapse of the agreements, to be followed by massive new tariffs.

Throw out those high school textbooks which describe the judiciary as one of the checks in the constitutional system of checks and balances, says Justice Barrett in the nationwide injunctions case, albeit not exactly in those words. The role of the judiciary is not to prevent Donald Trump from being a dictator; judges simply interpret the Constitution and the statutes using the methods they learned in law school to decide the cases that come before them. If the law can be construed to permit dictatorship, so be it, and don’t complain when it happens.

She means it. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

You can’t extinguish ideas by killing people, particularly in a liberal democratic state, which we still are as of today. In addition, Kirk was just a right-wing influencer; he didn’t have the power of the government behind him in any way. That makes his murder all the more odious.

At least it happened in Utah. Trump isn’t going to retaliate by sending troops there.