Category: Uncategorized

Trump insists he wants to end the Ukraine war. In this instance, there is no reason to doubt his sincerity. And yet, he is effectively prolonging the war. How is that possible?

If Trump would only take a firm, consistent position on the war, both sides would know where they stand and negotiate accordingly. Since he hasn’t, he gives hope to both the Russians and Ukrainians that he might, if manipulated carefully, come down completely on their side. It is that hope of ultimate victory that prolongs the war.

NATO may continue to exist on paper, but in the real world, it is as dead as a doornail. Why? Because the whole point of it is to use the American military to prevent Russian aggression against fellow liberal democracies, but Trump despises liberal democracy and thinks Russian aggression is just a normal fact of life. No one seriously believes American security guarantees can be relied upon at this point. Then what?

The French have a bomb, but the far right is likely to win the next presidential election, and it has little use for NATO. The UK also has nuclear weapons, but it isn’t even part of the EU, and the far right may win the next election there, too. The burden of protecting Europe from the Russians, therefore, will fall on the Germans.

Rebuilding a powerful conventional German military will be a slow and expensive process. The short cut would be to build a bomb. Given Germany’s, shall we say, awkward recent history, you would expect Putin to threaten a preemptive attack with both conventional and nuclear arms when he finds out about it. That’s when events in Europe start getting really interesting.

I noted in my introduction last year that I had less confidence in my predictions than usual. The caveat was appropriate; the predictions didn’t age that well.

1. NO IRAN WAR: I predicted that Bibi would push for war, but that the Iranians would snow Trump with promises while building the bomb. That was, in fact, the strategy, and it was working until Bibi decided to act unilaterally. Trump subsequently piled on when it appeared he could do so without much risk. The war was limited and, in the end, inconclusive. Bibi is now pushing for more grass cutting. Trump is unlikely to oblige.
2. GAZA WAR WINDS DOWN: This one was generally on target. The war is sort of over, but no meaningful political progress has been made, and none is likely in the near future.
3. UKRAINE WAR ENDS: I predicted that Trump would move from being an active party supporting Ukraine to a mediator, that Putin would be intransigent, that America would refuse to give meaningful security guarantees, and that the Ukrainians would accept a bad deal in the absence of better alternatives. Most of this has come to pass, but the war obviously isn’t over yet. We have heard that the American negotiators have agreed to guarantees similar to Article 5, but until Trump signs off on that, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
4. CHINESE RECOVERY: I thought Xi would finally agree to a large stimulus program to stop the rot. Instead, he doubled down on exports and alienated the rest of the world in the process.
5. MACRON RESIGNS: This one was a total bust. Macron won’t even agree to new parliamentary elections. As a result, the far right is in an even stronger position to win the presidential election in 2027; the public has no evidence of the right’s inability to govern and reason to believe that Macron, not the right or left, is the source of instability. This won’t end well.
6. AMERICAN IMPERIALISM: We may well be on the verge of a war with Venezuela. This one was mostly accurate; the timing is off slightly.

The argument has several components:

1. The new tax cuts will kick in;
2. The chaotic part of the tariff rollout will end, so a greater degree of certainty will return;
3. Foreign investment will increase as a result of the trade deals;
4. Interest rates will fall; and
5. The worst of the inflationary impacts of the tariffs and deportations have already been experienced. Inflation will cool significantly.

To which I respond as follows:

1. Most Americans aren’t getting a tax cut; they are simply avoiding a tax increase. Eliminating taxes on tips and overtime will only help a very limited number of people. The increase in the standard deduction for seniors will have a greater impact, but will be largely offset by higher costs elsewhere.
2. Trump and chaos are synonymous, because the whole point of his presidency is to show his opponents he has arbitrary power over them. There will be plenty more whimsical interventions in the economy, and the uncertainty will continue.
3. There will be plenty of foot-dragging on the investments that were contemplated by the trade agreements.
4. Many of the inflationary impacts of the tariffs haven’t been felt yet. There will be lots of very visible price increases in 2026. As a result, interest rates won’t decline much.
5. What if there is an unforeseen external shock? What if crypto crashes, as it often does? What if AI is a bubble? The Trump economy depends on these things not happening. Don’t count on it.

My predictions on domestic affairs were right on target. Here is the list, and what actually happened:

1. TAX CUTS: I predicted that, after much grunting and groaning, something like the BBB would ultimately be approved, which was correct.
2. SPENDING CUTS: In the same vein, we did see significant spending cuts in discretionary spending and in the less popular entitlement programs, and the deficit continued to be a problem.
3. TARIFFS: I was too optimistic about the universal tariffs, but I was right about the chaotic rollout of the programs and the impacts of the ensuing uncertainty.
4. DEPORTATIONS: I predicted that there would be plenty of terror, but that Trump would quietly tell ICE to back off on agricultural and food industry workers. There is an ongoing debate within the administration on the latter point, but for the most part, I would say my guess was correct. Immigrants everywhere have been threatened, but of the activity has taken place in the cities.
5. POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS: They have happened, as I suggested, but my prediction that Trump would lay off the most visible targets was wrong.
6. END OF THE BROMANCE: Right on schedule.

Here’s where the factions stand on Trump’s AI deregulation:

1. CLs: Go for it! Get government off the back of business and watch the economy fly!
2. PBPs: We’re not sure exactly where AI is going, but we’re sure it will reduce our labor costs and boost profits. Count us in.
3. CDs: This looks like a rerun of globalization. Big business will make huge profits, and workers will get the shaft. Plus, AI will be used by perverts and fraudsters against decent American citizens. We need sensible regulation before we let the big dog eat.
4. Reactionaries: Making a handful of tech entrepreneurs even wealthier at the expense of American workers doesn’t sound like a great idea, and we share the CDs concerns about perverts and fraudsters.

Trump has clearly sided with the CLs and the PBPs against the base on this issue. Expect it to be discussed extensively in the 2028 primaries.

This may be the last “normal” Christmas we experience for the foreseeable future. Why? Because significant parts of the country may be under military rule by this time next year. If Trump feels threatened by the outcome of the midterms and Hegseth believes the culture change in the military is reasonably complete, the authoritarian project could be in place in blue states as early as November 2026.

So enjoy it while you can. Merry Christmas!

GREENLAND

Greenland! Greenland!

No longer Danish Greenland.

Once Trump takes it for us, he’ll be ever happy then.

Ice and snow land

Mineral-wealthy Greenland.

After we invade it, we can ne’re return again.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Trump has started to make it clear that his primary interest in Venezuela is neither liberal democracy nor the sale of illegal drugs; he wants to “take back” what he considers to be “our” oil. Is there any merit to this?

Absolutely not–the oil is not within America’s borders. It is apparently true that giant multinational oil companies headquartered in the US once had more right to exploit and profit from Venezuelan oil than they do today. I have trouble seeing how that made the oil yours and mine, or how restoring those rights would benefit us much in the future.

Each day brings us new evidence that Mike Johnson no longer has any control over his caucus. Some of that is due to his wafer-thin majority, but Pelosi always managed to keep the herd moving in the right direction, even when she had a tiny margin of error. Why the difference?

Apart from Pelosi’s superior political skills, the difference is in the mindset of the two political parties. The GOP is united only in its dislike of the left, and its members have been taught that the path to wealth and power involves getting lots of attention on the internet and Fox News. The Democrats, on the other hand, agree broadly on their vision of the just society–the battle over Medicare for All, for example, is about feasibility, not desirability–and they are more interested in results than attention, an attitude that works better in the majority than in opposition.

Around noon yesterday, the NYT ran a headline saying that Trump and Hegseth would make a big announcement in Florida in the next few hours. I assumed it involved an attack on Venezuela. As it turned out, the administration is going to build a new class of “battleship” (battleships are sitting ducks, so we don’t build them anymore) to be named after Trump. Crisis averted, at least for now.

This episode reminded me, however, that the very first task of the next Democratic president should be to sign an executive order removing Trump’s name from everything (and I mean everything) he puts it on during his second term.

In case you were wondering, getting rid of all of that gold is Job 2.

It would be difficult to find a more annoying Trump lackey than Elise Stefanik. Her departure from the NY governor race and planned retirement from Congress consequently leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I will be happy to see her go; on the other, a crushing Hochul victory over her would have given me great satisfaction.

Trump will probably give her a job as a consolation prize. No one licks his boots more abjectly than she does, so she has certainly earned some compensation.

Members of the far right, following J.D. Vance, love to talk about “heritage Americans.” What does that term mean?

The definition appears to have two different threads. The first one is ethnic and cultural; it applies only to WASPs. The second is historical; only Americans whose ancestors immigrated during or before the Civil War need apply.

The distinction is extremely important. I’m of sturdy WASP stock, but my ancestors didn’t arrive in America until the turn of the 20th century. By the cultural test, I am a heritage American, but by the historical standard, I am not.

So which is it? If the historical test is the one that matters, virtually all black Americans, and a fair number of Hispanics, qualify. Is that what Vance really means? And why is an American whose ancestors immigrated after the Civil War better than a virtually identical one with American roots that are only 100 years old?

This will make for a fascinating discussion when Vance tries to persuade hundreds of millions of what he thinks are second-class citizens (including his wife, of course) to vote for him in 2028.

(It’s 5:00 on December 24. Bob Cratchit is working in his cubicle at Scrooge, LLC when the boss, in “managing by walking around” mode, comes by.)

C: Mr. Scrooge, Sir.

S: What is it . . . (he ostentatiously looks at the nameplate on the cubicle) . . . Cratchit?

C: Can I have tomorrow off, Sir?

S: Why in the world would I do that?

C: Why . . . because it’s Christmas, Sir.

S: Not in China, it isn’t. How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give people like you unnecessary days off?

C: Actually, the Chinese get a whole week off for Chinese New Year to enjoy time with their families. I totally get that. I have a special needs child who may not have long to live. I need to spend as much time with him as I can while he’s still here.

S: (Sees a picture of Tiny Tim in the cubicle) Is that him?

C: Yes, Sir.

(Scrooge walks around the office with an exaggerated limp)

C: There’s nothing funny about it, sir! He’s in really bad shape!

S: I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.

C: You sound just like Donald Trump, Sir.

S: Don’t mention that man’s name to me.

C: Why not? You said you voted for him last year.

S: I only voted for him because the alternative was higher taxes and regulations. That man is wrecking my business with his tariffs. He wants to be the CEO of the entire country, but he couldn’t even run a casino. He keeps ordering me to suck up to him. The only good thing he’s done is deregulate AI.

C: Why are you so bullish on AI?

S: Because it will cut my costs dramatically. I won’t have to hire drones like you who are always making demands on me.

C: But what about Christmas?

S: AI hasn’t progressed to the point where I can get rid of the likes of you. At some point, it will, but for now, I have to keep you people reasonably happy. Otherwise, you’ll vote for some stupid liberal in 2028, and I’ll really be screwed.

C: So I get the day off?

S: Sort of. There will be a Zoom meeting at noon. I’ll text you the password.

C: Thank you, Sir!

S: And don’t even think about ghosting me!

Vivek Ramaswamy has had enough. He sees an avalanche of racist abuse on social media, and he doesn’t like it. It’s time for the GOP to excommunicate the racist haters, he says in a column in the NYT; they’re as bad as the crazy wokesters on the left. And let’s get rid of the idea of “heritage Americans” once and for all; if you’re a responsible citizen who pays his taxes and agrees with democracy and the rule of law, it doesn’t matter when your family moved here.

Ramaswamy never mentions the name of J.D. Vance, but this is a frontal assault on the VP, who is more closely associated with the concept of “heritage Americans” than any other politician. He does, however, refer to Vance’s Indian wife with approval.

The NYT column raises two questions for me. First of all, it suggests that Ramaswamy will be vulnerable to a challenge from the reactionary right during the campaign in Ohio. Second, I can’t help wondering if Vance’s marriage can survive years of this kind of attack; his family is a living repudiation of his ideology and his ambitions. Wouldn’t divorcing your Indian wife in the name of party unity be the ultimate right-wing Sister Souljah moment?