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:
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.
There are basically four reasons why so many women–and not just American women–refuse to get married, settle down, and have kids:
The answer to #1 was the creation of the Godly Society through the use of massive tariffs. Trump has already recognized economic reality and abandoned that objective by setting the tariffs at more moderate levels. The pro-natalists are proposing nothing to address the other three issues; their pitch to women seems to be to embrace poverty and sacrifice. That isn’t going to cut it.
When Trump sees another strongman, he assumes he is looking in the mirror. That’s why he is always so desperate to meet with Xi. Is he right?
No, because strongmen are not fungible. Kim is essentially a hereditary monarch, while Putin is a dictator; like Trump, they can change positions on a dime, and the nation is bound to follow. Xi, on the other hand, is the leader of a country with an entrenched official ideology and a huge bureaucracy. For all of the power he wields within the system, he can’t simply ignore its interests; as a true believer, it is doubtful he would even want to try. That means personal diplomacy with him is only going to get Trump so far.
C: We haven’t talked about Trump for a few months. How would you grade his economy?
M: C-plus. Maybe a D-minus.
S: A-plus.
C: Mark, you’ve given him a pretty low grade. Why?
M: He did cut my taxes, so I didn’t give him an F. His random, capricious interventions in the economy are causing me and my car dealership lots of problems. The tariffs are killing us. We’re selling 2023 models that no one wanted before to avoid jacking up prices. Profits are down. And it’s not going to get any better anytime soon.
C: Leaving aside your personal issues, how would you rate the macro elements of the economy?
M: Unemployment is up slightly. Inflation hasn’t fallen; in fact, practically everything Trump is doing is designed to increase prices. Poor people are struggling. There is no industrial renaissance. The deportations are causing labor shortages. There’s nothing here to celebrate.
C: Sebastian, why do you think the economy is so great?
S: Gas prices are down. There’s hope again. Trump is sticking it to the people I hate. That’s what I really care about.
C: It sounds like your evaluation isn’t really based on the state of the economy.
S: What’s really important to me is showing blue America who’s the boss. That’s Trump, and by extension, people like me. It may not make me money, but it sure feels good.
C: What do you think of the “No Kings” protests?
S: I want Trump to be a king. I want him to burn down blue America. Those people are getting what they deserve from him.
C: How do you feel about his attacks on the universities?
M: Some of his ideas about protecting conservatives on campus are OK. But, as a taxpayer, I want money for cancer research to go to the most qualified people, not to people who agree with Trump about trans people. That’s just stupid.
S: It’s another example of Trump fulfilling his promises to inflict pain on the elites. I totally approve of that. If some money gets wasted in the process, that’s OK.
C: What about sending troops to American cities?
M: It’s unnecessary and divisive. It could lead to big trouble in the future.
S: Still another example of Trump showing the bad guys who’s boss.
C: And the indictments of Trump’s enemies?
S: They’re getting what they deserve. They did it to him first.
M: That turns my stomach. It tells you that anyone who speaks out against Trump could be next.
S: Yeah, it could be you, RINO.
C: That’s enough for today.
Rinse and repeat. Deja vu all over again. Lighting the fire and then putting it out. That’s what Trump’s relationship with Xi is all about.
The world understands perfectly; for all of Trump’s bluster and determination to prove he is the boss, he is losing the trade war to China, because Xi holds the rare earths card and is willing to use it. If you were in his position, you would, too.
This “agreement” is just a brief cease-fire. The real issues have not been resolved. We still don’t know what Trump’s real objectives are, and the likelihood is that he doesn’t, either. The war will return shortly.
Warren Zevon is going into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It should have happened twenty years ago, but late is a lot better than never.
In light of my previous two posts, I have been scanning American history to determine whether there are precedents for a candidate running purely as the mouthpiece of the incumbent. Madison (Jefferson), Monroe (Madison), Van Buren (Jackson), and George H.W. Bush (Reagan) don’t really fit the bill, because they were politicians of considerable reputation in their own right. Vance, as a national figure, had about as much heft as Dan Quayle before Trump chose him as his running mate.
The closest precedent would be Taft, who ran and won as TR’s anointed candidate. You will recall that the Taft episode didn’t end well for the GOP. TR ultimately turned on him and ran as a third-party candidate, thus handing the presidency to Wilson in 1912.
As I’ve noted many times before, Harris couldn’t run on Biden’s record, because it was unjustly unpopular. She couldn’t run as a credible change agent, either. That left her with nothing except Trump’s record and the threat he posed to liberal democracy, which wasn’t enough.
J.D. Vance will be in a slightly different position in 2028. He will have to defend every inch of Trump’s record. Any initiatives of his own will have to be described as logical extensions of Trumpism. He will be running as a perpetual outsider who is actually responsible for the condition of the country.
Will it work? Only if Trump is viewed as a roaring success by the electorate, which seems highly unlikely.
When Elizabeth I was asked why she wouldn’t designate a successor, she said people worshipped the rising, not the setting, sun. Trump almost certainly understands that, which is why he persists in talking about a third term.
Consider what this means for J.D. Vance. He won’t be able to start his campaign until very late in the process. Neither Trump nor the base will forgive him if he puts any distance at all between himself and the president. In fact, I suspect he will have to portray himself as a puppet for Trump in order to get the nomination. That will be awkward, to say the least.
Where does that leave Vance if Trump is viewed as a failure by a majority of Americans? Oh, right. He’ll still have the military and the DOJ. That might be enough.
With regard to the blue team’s ostensible objective–forcing the GOP to make a deal on Obamacare subsidies–it is already clear that the shutdown has been a failure, as nobody has openly broken ranks on the issue. The most you can say is that the public’s consciousness has been raised on the issue, and the GOP will be blamed if, as is likely, the government does nothing to solve the problem after it reopens.
There are a number of dates in the near future that could trigger the end to the crisis. Open enrollment starts on November 1. The end of SNAP payments in many states will start on that date. The election is a few days later. There is no obvious reason to go on after that, because the country now knows that the Democrats have no leverage in Washington on health care or any other issue, with the possible exception of farmer aid. Period.
Will the base be satisfied with a surrender in the face of millions of poor people going hungry? I’m guessing most of it will. The real danger is that the activists will conclude that the only possible answer is on the streets and behave accordingly, because Trump will meet them with force if they get violent.
If Trump’s principal objective in Asia is geopolitical–the flexible containment of China–he should be making deals to cut tariffs with China’s neighbors. If his overriding goal is not geopolitical, but to create a lasting trade deal with China, he should nonetheless cozy up to our traditional allies in order to create leverage with the CCP. If his goals revolve around trade, however, and he makes no distinction between our allies and the Chinese, there is no reason to deepen our relationships with anyone in Asia. Which option will Trump choose?
Option #1 is unlikely. I can’t tell if he prefers Option #2 or Option #3. Chances are, he doesn’t know himself.
You will recall that Cass noted a month or so ago that it was time for kindly Uncle Donald to stop wrecking things and acting capriciously; he needed to put his program on a more stable and lasting basis through legislation, which meant working with Democrats. How is that working for him?
Just within the last week, Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Canada because the PM of Ontario ran a commercial that pissed him off. He bulldozed the East Wing after promising he wouldn’t. He’s openly talking about regime change in Venezuela without any authorization from Congress. And, of course, he won’t bend on the shutdown, because he can’t tolerate the thought that his political opponents have any leverage over him.
In other words, as I predicted, kindly Uncle Donald is about as plausible as Uncle Joe Stalin.