Author: hamilton1788

Biden and Trump would agree: Ukraine will never have the manpower to take back large areas of captured territory; and including Ukraine in NATO is not worth the risk. Does that mean their objectives are fundamentally similar?

No. Biden was determined to preserve as much of Ukraine’s sovereignty as possible. He wanted to make sure that any decision to trade land for peace was made by the Ukrainian government, not the outside world. The level of aid given to Ukraine was designed to increase the Ukrainian government’s leverage during the inevitable negotiations. Trump, on the other hand, wants peace at virtually any price. He thinks Russia is a natural American ally; Ukraine is the principal obstacle to that alliance. His objective, therefore, is to make a deal with Putin with minimal outside input and to use his leverage on Ukraine to make it stick.

Less developed nations frequently use the military to perform law enforcement functions, for three reasons: it centralizes authority in the head of state; the army is frequently viewed as less corrupt than the police; and the army is better at busting heads than the police. What could go wrong?

Plenty. Busting heads doesn’t win you lots of friends in the community, particularly if some of those heads are innocent; the military doesn’t have training in police tactics and may rely on blind force rather than intelligence; the head of state similarly has no particular competence in the field; and the military isn’t necessarily less corrupt than the police. That’s why this tactic rarely works.

Of course, Trump isn’t militarizing America because we are suffering through a crime wave; he simply wants to show people in blue areas that he’s the boss. Think of a dog using his pee to mark a spot as an analogy here.

The actress Sydney Sweeney stars in an advertising campaign touting her “good jeans/genes.” A few crazed left-wing commentators on social media interpret this as support for white supremacy. Right-wingers on social media pick this up. Ultimately, the story winds up on Fox News and becomes a national issue. Even though no prominent Democrats say anything about it, the entire party is tarred with the extremist position. The right wins another battle in the culture wars.

The left, on the other hand, has no similar mechanism to attach neo-Nazi views held by a handful of extremists to the entire GOP. To some extent, this is due to the fact that the top of the left-wing media food chain takes journalistic responsibility more seriously than Fox News. Nevertheless, something has to be done about it, or the blue team will always be playing defense in the culture wars, because there is no practical way to make its extremists shut up.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: A few days after I referred to the “Joan of Arc problem” in a post, Ross Douthat covered some of the same ground in an NYT column. The difference between his discussion and mine is that he used Joan as the jumping off point for speculation about the motives of a providential Christian God, while I find the concept logically absurd. More on that in a few weeks.

Joan of Arc was a peasant girl from the eastern part of France. She had no special training or education that would set her apart from millions of other peasant girls. But she received what she believed to be directions from three saints to contact the Dauphin and save France from the English. She went to the French court, identified the Dauphin there in spite of his disguise, rejuvenated the French resistance at Orleans, defeated an English army there, and began the process which ended with a complete French victory, excluding only Calais. How could this happen? It sounds miraculous.

I have read attempts to explain all of these events in purely rational terms. Taken collectively, they are implausible to the point of being ridiculous. The simplest, and almost certainly best, explanation is that Joan was, in fact, inspired by someone or something paranormal. If you accept that was the case, I do not see how you can accept the notion that matter in motion is the ultimate reality.

But who were the voices in Joan’s head? Was it God, the three saints, or something else? More on that in a future post.

In both cases, the parameters of a plausible and fair deal are perfectly obvious to all of the parties. The deals never happen because they come with risks that the principal parties view as being unacceptable.

What could change that? For the immigration issue, it would have to be a resounding defeat for the GOP in 2026 and 2028. For the West Bank, it would be some sort of dramatic change in the balance of power in Israel’s backyard. Potential revolutions in Egypt and Jordan come to mind.

Trump meets Putin in Alaska

T: Vlad the Impaler! Good to see you again, man!

P: It’s always good to be back on what was Russian soil. The Tsar was a fool to just give it away.

T: But Alaska has always been American.

P: Say what?

T: George Washington kept his troops there during the winter when he was fighting the British. That’s why they were so cold.

P: That’s fake news. Who told you that?

T: Sarah Palin, I think. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard.

P: You should know better than to listen to your intelligence people. Trust me, not them.

T: I do, Vlad, I do. If you say it’s fake news, it must be.

P: Now, let’s talk about Ukraine.

T: A real estate deal! I love it! No one knows more about real estate deals than me!

P: There’s more to it than that, of course.

T: Not really. What are your terms?

P: In order to keep you happy, I will no longer insist on Ukraine giving up land they still hold. Of course, what’s mine remains mine forever.

T: That’s good, Vlad. I can go along with that.

P: Can you make Zelensky go along with it?

T: He has to. He doesn’t have the cards. You and I do.

P: Ukraine can never be part of NATO.

T: I’m on board with that. The last thing I want to do is go to war with you over some insignificant piece of territory on your border.

P: Right. Think of Ukraine as Russia’s Canada–your 51st state.

T: I’m good with that.

P: No NATO troops in Ukraine–ever.

T: OK so far. I can make that happen.

P: No American weapons in Ukraine, even if the Europeans buy them, and no assistance from America or Europe with the creation of Ukrainian defense industries. Ukraine must never be a threat to Russia again.

T: I can promise we won’t give anything away. The rest of it, I’m not sure. I’ll have to talk to the Euros about that.

P: There’s no peace in Ukraine without that commitment, and you don’t get your Nobel Peace Prize.

T: I need to think about that one.

As I noted in a previous post, Jamieson Greer, the US Trade Representative, made the case for Trump’s tariffs in an NYT column a few days ago. How much of what he said was true, and what was false?

Here is my analysis:

1. TRUMP HAS UPENDED THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE: This is true. Trump has no regard for international organizations or attempts to create wins for everyone. He wants American dominance, and he wants the rest of the world to acknowledge its subservience to him. Using huge tariffs as a form of bilateral leverage is his principal means of getting the point across.
2. TRUMP HAS IMPROVED AMERICAN ACCESS TO FOREIGN MARKETS: Partly true. Improving access for exports was never his primary goal; otherwise, he would have accepted the zero-zero offers that were made early in the negotiations. In addition, alienating consumers in other countries with bluster is not a particularly shrewd way to market American products, and it remains to be seen if lowering already minimal tariffs and eliminating a few health regulations will have a meaningful impact on American exports. With all of that said, it is clear that the agreements have improved access to foreign markets at least a little bit.
3. THE PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENTS RELATING TO INVESTMENT ARE ENFORCEABLE: Mostly false. The agreements aren’t even remotely done yet, and what we know about them is hardly encouraging. The Japanese don’t accept Trump’s version of the investment vehicle, and the EU isn’t even pretending that its “commitments” can be imposed on the private sector.
4. THE INFLATIONARY IMPACTS OF THE TARIFFS WILL BE LIMITED AND TRANSITORY: TBD. American businesses have largely been eating the tariffs to date or have dealt with them by stockpiling inventory. Now that the system is more or less in place, it is highly unlikely they will continue to accept lower profits for years to come. That means increased inflation; whether it will result in an inflationary spiral remains to be seen. It could go either way.

Trump is basically a used car salesman with ego and anger management issues; he habitually pretends that everything is great and under control when it isn’t. As a result, he continues to tell us that only foreigners pay his tariffs and that they are making us rich. In keeping with the party line, an NYT column written by Trump’s trade representative, Jamieson Greer, says almost nothing about price increases and assures us they will be minimal and transitory.

Right. If Trump could be honest about his tariffs for just a few seconds and tell us that the short-term pain will be more than justified by the long-term gain, the American public might be more understanding. As it is, an electorate that has become more sensitive to inflation over the last few years and remembers Trump’s promises to bring prices down during the campaign will be more inclined to believe its eyes than the president’s sales patter.

Trump and Vought have made it clear from the beginning: federal employees are the worst form of scum imaginable. They are jackbooted thugs who need to be brought to heel. With the random DOGE firings, inflammatory rhetoric, and attacks on public employee unions, Trump has followed through with his program of destruction. The federal workforce is cowed and demoralized.

Now, it turns out, we actually need to replace some of the employees who were so unceremoniously dismissed, because, unbelievable as it may seem, they have expertise that is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. My question is, why would anyone with a choice in the matter work for a government which offers him nothing but misery and contempt?

The exception, of course, is ICE, which under the current leadership truly is a group of jackbooted thugs. If you’re a sadist or an authoritarian, we have plenty of room for you.

For Columbia and Brown.

UNDER MY THUMB

Under my thumb

Stuck up elites who once had me down.

Under my thumb

Elites who once pushed me around.

_________

It’s up to me.

Oh, yeah.

The difference in the profs they hire.

Up to me

The change has come

They’re under my thumb.

_____________

Under my thumb

The wokeness crowd once had its day.

Under my thumb

The wokeness crowd has just changed its ways.

__________

It’s up to me.

Oh, yeah.

The way they do just what they’re told.

Up to me

The change has come

They’re under my thumb.

______________

Under my thumb

The MAGA flag has just been unfurled.

Under my thumb

They all know who’s boss of the world.

____________________

It’s up to me.

Yes, it is.

The way they talk when they’re spoken to.

Up to me

The change has come

They’re under my thumb.

___________

Parody of “Under My Thumb” by the Rolling Stones.

For understandable historical reasons, India has been reluctant to embrace the US too closely even in the face of a serious threat from China. Nevertheless, both countries need each other, and Biden treated the Indians with respect and forbearance. As a result, India was slowly becoming a key player in Biden’s system of flexible containment.

Trump, on the other hand, has just hit the Indians with massive tariffs. Does that make sense, from a geopolitical perspective?

Of course not, unless your primary geopolitical objective is to show the world you’re the boss.

In the late 1840s, hundreds of thousands of people, driven by political strife, economic problems, and famine, left Europe for America. They brought their religion, their language, and their customs with them. How did predominantly WASP America respond?

Millions of Americans fretted that the new immigrants could not be assimilated. They were too Catholic, too strange, and too insular to fit in this country. Something had to be done. The result, of course, was the creation of what was popularly called the Know Nothing Party.

So we have been here before. MAGA is not attempting to deport the descendants of the 1840s immigrants; in fact, it considers them to be “legacy Americans.” MAGA is therefore effectively arguing that the current crop of immigrants is fundamentally different in some way from the Irish, German, and Italian immigrants who allegedly would, if unchecked, have swamped our culture. The obvious question is, how? What evidence supports that proposition?

Israel’s friends are increasingly turning against it due to its starvation campaign in Gaza. Even Bret Stephens is questioning the wisdom of it. What is going on here?

Four things. First of all, starvation hits children first, which means the optics are bad. Second, it serves no obvious military purpose in the battle against the pathetic remnants of Hamas. Third, the imbalance of power in Gaza has been so great for months now that the world is unwilling to blame the war on Hamas. Finally, starvation plays into the narrative that Israel wants to commit either genocide or ethnic cleansing in Gaza in order to redevelop the place for Jewish settlers. The presence in the cabinet of extreme right ministers who clearly want this to happen doesn’t help.

Nothing with Trump is ever final, of course; he will slap additional tariffs on anyone who pisses him off through the end of his term. Some of his agreements are fragmentary at best, and nothing is resolved with the Chinese. For all that, the end game of his trade war is becoming reasonably clear. What is it?

Here are my observations:

1. Whether out of fear of market reaction or just out of realism, Trump has abandoned the Godly Society. The tariffs are way too small to create an industrial renaissance in America. It was never going to happen, anyway.
2. As I’ve noted many times before, the investment commitments from the EU, Japan, and South Korea are mostly illusory. To the extent that they actually materialize, however, they will give Trump new resources with which to reward his friends and punish his enemies, which is pretty scary.
3. Farmers, weapons manufacturers, and natural gas producers will get more export business. They are the American winners of the war.
4. The rest of us are the losers. We will pay higher prices for goods for the purpose of financing the tax cuts in the BBB. In the end, the desire for increased revenue appears to have been Trump’s principal objective, not the Godly Society.
5. The biggest remaining question is whether the price increases for goods will spark demands for higher wages and thus start an inflationary spiral. I think you will see some of that, particularly since Americans are more sensitive to inflation after the Biden years. If it happens, there will be pressure to raise interest rates, Trump will go berserk, and nothing good will result.

As I am writing this, Texas Democrats have fled the state in an effort to stop an effort by the GOP to impose an ambitious redistricting plan on them. California, Illinois, and New York are threatening to retaliate in kind. What should we make of this?

Two observations are pertinent. First, redistricting plans are intended to maximize the number of seats possessed by the party in power by reducing majorities in safe seats to a bare minimum. In a wave election, that can result in a boomerang gerrymander; the party that approved the redistricting could wind up actually losing seats. Second, this is the inevitable result of the Supreme Court’s decisions to step away from enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and to stay out of partisan gerrymandering cases altogether. There were some gentlemen’s agreements to avoid partisan warfare to protect the public interest before Trump, but Trump is as far from a gentleman as you can get, and the blue team isn’t about to disarm unilaterally.