Category: Uncategorized

Personally, I think Trump’s immigration raids are stupid and inhumane. But they were the centerpiece of the man’s campaign, the majority of Americans approve of them, and they don’t violate any laws. So what is the point of rioting to show your opposition to them?

Violent demonstrations aren’t going to force Trump to back down. In fact, they provide images to the American public that buttress his claim that only he can save us from the apocalypse. They also provide the pretext for the militarization of law enforcement, a trend that could well be extended to extinguish American liberal democracy in the near future.

What we have now is theater. What could follow is far worse. The demonstrators would be wise to keep that in mind.

In “Echo in the Canyon,” Tom Petty says he can’t see anything in Mozart that is better than Brian Wilson. An overstatement? Yes, but not a ridiculous one.

When I was growing up, I had little use for the Beach Boys, because I thought their vision of sun, beaches, surfers, hot women, and convertibles was irrelevant to the everyday life of the vast majority of Americans, including me. Today, I enjoy those songs for precisely the same reason.

There has been considerable discussion over the last year or so comparing American tech company leaders to Russian oligarchs. Are they similar?

The Russian economy is based on access to natural resources and government spending, both of which are controlled by Putin’s neo-feudal state. The wealth of Russian oligarchs, as a result, is completely dependent on support for Putin. American tech leaders, on the other hand, created their own sources of wealth. Their goals are much more limited; they want low taxes and a light regulatory touch, particularly on antitrust issues, from Washington for the businesses they created. They are also asking for a degree of assistance from Trump with unfriendly international regulatory regimes. Finally, they want to be free from arbitrary decisions from Trump on tariffs and immigration. Sucking up to a president determined to show he is the boss of everything, even though he isn’t, seems like a good way to get to Point B.

It’s not the same thing at all.

On the ex-KGB man named Putin.

He invaded Ukraine, you’re darned tootin’.

He claims to want peace

But the war hasn’t ceased

‘Cause he gains less by talkin’ than shootin’.

Now that Musk is mostly out of the picture, should the Democrats take his side in the cat fight? After all, for all of his reactionary and anti-democratic ideas, he stands for an open America, clean energy, and an economy based on the future, not the past. Democrats, by and large, agree with him on these things.

The answer is mostly no. The blue team should probably stop bashing Tesla, but Musk himself is more useful as a cartoon villain than an ally, and his culture war and redistribution positions make him persona non grata with too much of the party.

Like millions of other people, I predicted the Trump-Musk bromance would come to a quick and bitter end. And so it has, although Musk seems to be making some efforts to patch things up. The problems are largely personal; both men have enormous egos and are used to being the boss. But is there more to the story?

Yes. Musk is a CL; he wants to reduce the size of government dramatically in order to give himself and his fellow techno-aristocrats more ability to shape the future. It is a forward-looking ideology. Trump doesn’t care about debt; he just wants to use government to show the world he’s in charge and to provide benefits for his supporters. There are far more MAGA reactionaries in his base than there are CLs. In the end, this is an easy choice for Trump.

The issue isn’t whether sending troops to LA was necessary (it wasn’t), whether the demonstrations had turned into something like riots (they had), or whether the troops were accomplishing anything useful (they weren’t). No, the question now is how far Trump is prepared to press the issue. Is this the point where troops are sent all over the country to shoot peaceful protesters? Will Trump attempt to replace the governments of blue states? TBD.

I predicted last year that public protests against immigration policy would provide the equivalent of the Reichstag Fire if Trump had the audacity to use it. Nothing in the last few days has caused me to change my mind, although it has not happened yet.

In 1687, it must have seemed like James II’s road to autocracy was clear. Monmouth was dead, the long-desired standing army was in place, and Parliament was reasonably cooperative. In a year, however, it had all disappeared; it turned out James’ base of support was a mile wide and an inch deep. How did it all go wrong?

Overreach and incompetence are the wannabe autocrat’s worst enemies, and the liberal’s best friends. Any government that ignores the limits of its mandate, drives out experts, and only listens to the gut of a single eminently fallible man is bound to fail. Really, can anyone name a reactionary autocrat who didn’t bring disaster to his people?

On the once-again President Trump.

Elon Musk has made him quite a grump.

While the bromance is done,

You can’t say Elon won

Because Tesla is in a big slump.

It is doubtful that Trump subscribes to many of RFK’s unconventional views on health care. He nominated RFK for three reasons: to repay a campaign debt; to blow up the establishment he so despises; and to own the libs. Is that enough to keep the relationship going?

No. RFK is already annoying members of Congress from rural areas who represent Trump’s base. Furthermore, Trump will be blamed if anything goes seriously wrong in the public health field, which seems quite likely. RFK’s projected shelf life is around a year.

A note to my readers: I will be on vacation through 6/9. Regular posting will resume on 6/10.

Like Howard “Our beef is beautiful, Europe’s is weak” Lutnick, Scott Bessent has Trump’s patter down cold. When he was asked about yesterday’s judicial decision on the tariffs, he noted in his reply that Donald Trump always wins. That’s the spirit!

But is it true? Is Trump’s record an unbroken series of wins since Inauguration Day? Let’s look at the record:

1. Trump said he would end the Ukraine conflict on Day 1. His mediation and arbitration efforts have flopped. Now he’s threatening to just walk away.
2. The Gaza war has continued in spite of his threats to Hamas.
3. He attacked the Houthis, expended lots of ammunition, and then backed off when it became obvious that he wasn’t accomplishing anything.
4. He has lost far more often than he has won on a variety of issues in court even though the odds, in the form of customary judicial deference, are stacked in his favor.
5. He has only one sort-of agreement to show for all of his tariffs.
6. He single-handedly lost the elections in Canada and Australia for the conservative parties.

Does that sound like a great record to you?

David Brooks has a ferocious column attacking the indifference of J.D. Vance and Patrick Deneen to liberal democratic values in today’s NYT. Since Brooks has been an influential conservative much longer than J.D., his passion on this subject should be a source of concern to the New Right.

Brooks argues that Americans throughout history have been willing to fight and die for abstract ideals, not just their homeland and its traditions. He’s right. I would add the following two comments:

1. J.D. and Deneen are conservative Catholics. If they are right that people only fight for their families and neighbors, how do they explain the Crusades?
2. On the other hand, J.D.’s form of tribalism only extends to conservative Americans with rural backgrounds. In his world, Americans only fight for other people if they have fundamentally similar ideas about politics and culture; nobody from Kentucky would willingly sacrifice his life for a New York liberal. That’s a pitifully weak form of blood and soil nationalism.

The U.S. Court of International Trade just invalidated several of Trump’s tariffs on the basis that they exceed his powers under the “emergency” statute that supposedly authorized them. What happens next?

Two things. First, tariffs are a huge part of Trump’s political identity, so don’t expect him to take this lying down. He will do everything possible to avoid complying with the order; open defiance is a real possibility. Second, when the Supreme Court ultimately decides this case, as it will, Roberts will be faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, as a prominent PBP, he probably thinks the tariffs are bad policy and worse politics. On the other hand, he almost certainly views them as being primarily an economic and political issue, not one involving fundamental legal rights, which should be judged by the electorate on their success or failure.

Roberts made a political decision to preserve the essence of Obamacare. My guess is that he will view tariffs as being the right-wing equivalent of health care and vote accordingly.

According to the NYT, Wall Street investors are putting lots of money into the TACO trade—TACO being an acronym for “Trump always chickens out.” When asked about this, Trump predictably went ballistic. What does this mean for the future?

The negotiations with the EU were never likely to succeed. Now, with Trump’s manhood on the line, the prospects for a deal are even worse.

In an interview in today’s NYT, Elissa Slotkin argues that the Democrats failed to understand how angry the public was about the economy and didn’t have a persuasive argument for change. As I’ve noted many times, however, Joe Biden did have an ambitious plan to make fundamental changes to the economy for the benefit of workers in 2020, but it failed in the face of inflation, intolerably slow implementation, bad salesmanship, and a lack of votes in the Senate. The Democrats could not run as change agents in 2024 because their plan for change had already run aground. What does this mean for next time?

It will be even harder to accomplish major reforms after 2028 than it was after 2020 because the debt and the cost of money have gone up significantly in the interim. That means a progressive plan to expand the welfare state will have to be funded by major tax increases, and not just on the very wealthy, to be plausible. The alternative will be to push the lower cost abundance agenda and downplay wealth redistribution; that was the model used successfully by the Labour Party last year. Getting rid of the Trump tariffs will, of course, be the centerpiece of the plan.

Will the electorate be willing to accept tax increases in exchange for additional economic security? We’ll find out in 2028; it won’t be necessary to talk about the tradeoff in 2026.