Category: Uncategorized

The Israelis are planning a massive new incursion into Gaza. They intend to herd the civilians into a small space in the southern part of the strip, take control of aid distribution, and annihilate everyone and everything else outside the protected area. It sounds a lot like the plan I proposed about a year ago, except that my suggestion regarding the generous treatment of civilians doesn’t appear to be one of its features.

What does this mean? It is certainly motivated in part by Bibi’s continuing desire to keep the extreme right happy and himself in power. It may well foreshadow an indefinite occupation and an effort to annex large chunks of Gaza. What it undoubtedly means is that Bibi has lost hope that Trump will attack Iran in the near future. There is no way he would put this much effort into Gaza with an Iran war on the horizon.

Here are my thoughts:

1. It is more detailed than a mere framework for further negotiations, but it isn’t a true trade agreement, as lots of work remains;
2. It is low hanging fruit, from Trump’s perspective, given that we don’t have a trade deficit with the UK;
3. It represents the limits of the possible with a liberal democratic state. It doesn’t guarantee that trade will be balanced in the future; it doesn’t in any way require the British public to buy any of our goods; it leaves controversial British health and safety requirements in place; and it focuses on a limited number of kinds of goods. As such, it suggests that the American ideologues who see tariffs and managed trade agreements as the gateway to the Godly Society are going to be sadly disappointed; farmers will profit, but nothing about the deal suggests that an American manufacturing renaissance is imminent.
4. The mere fact that it exists is better than nothing.

Everything I have read about Leo suggests that the profile of him in my previous post was correct. I’m ambivalent about his name; on the one hand, it sounds too much like Louis XIV, and the only Leo I knew before this morning was the uninspiring Medici Pope Leo X; on the other hand, it appears that Leo XIII was the kind of centrist, transitional, pastoral leader that I expect the new pope to be.

Not even the cardinals know who amongst them will be the next pope, so I will not hazard a guess. I will, however, predict that he will be a centrist with something to offer to everyone: to the right, more tolerance of the Latin Mass and an end to Francis’ trial balloons; and to the progressives, a promise to build bridges and vocally oppose the use of cruelty as a weapon against the poor and oppressed, most notably immigrants.

In other words, don’t expect Trump or Vance to be wearing a cardinal’s hat anytime soon.

It’s easy to forget now, but Joe Biden took office with the intention of being FDR for the 21st century. His efforts to overthrow the dollar store economy and the McConnell Project were defeated by inflation, the lack of votes in the Senate, and an increasingly conservative judiciary. As a result, neither he nor Harris could run convincingly as a change candidate, and his record, rightly or not, did not impress the American people. The Trump victory was the inevitable result.

Trump is trying to destroy the McConnell Project from a completely different angle. That leaves the Democrats with a difficult choice in the event we have fair elections in 2028. Should they attempt to assemble the widest possible coalition–including business interests who hate the tariffs–in order to bring back the status quo ante, including McConnell’s limitations on legislation and the use of executive power? Or should they use the opening created by Trump to reach for more fundamental change? This would mean completely eliminating the filibuster and ignoring unfavorable rulings from the Supreme Court.

We have a long way to go between now and then, but that will be the fundamental issue during the primaries.

Bessent and Greer are scheduled to meet with Chinese officials in a few days to discuss trade issues. What can we expect?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Since Trump and Xi will not attend, geopolitical issues will be off the table. In the end, they probably won’t be.
2. China is a truly mercantilist country. It is possible to make a managed trade agreement with it.
3. There is no possibility that the Chinese will agree to abandon its economic model just to maintain its level of exports to the US.
4. It is, however, possible to reach an agreement in which the Chinese buy more American gas and agricultural products. This agreement would look a lot like the one that Trump negotiated during his first term.
5. The Chinese did not meet their obligations under the first agreement.
6. Even if they did, increased profits for farmers and gas companies would hardly represent an American industrial renaissance or bring about the Godly Society. It would not be worth the chaos and the pain of the trade war to the average American.

Trump comes down to the Oval Office, where Elon is packing up his stuff.

M: How’s the most powerful man in the world?

T: Great! The Houthis just bent the knee to me, like everyone else! How’s the richest man in the world?

M: Things have been better. The value of my car company has plummeted. I have to get back to my day job.

T: Well, I’m doing the best I can for you. I bought a Tesla, and I’m sending billions in contracts to SpaceX. And anyone who vandalizes a Tesla is being prosecuted for a hate crime.

M: Much appreciated.

T: I’m sorry to see you go. We sure raised a lot of hell together, didn’t we?

M: Absolutely! The deep state will never be the same. Now it knows you’re the boss. It won’t get in the way again.

T: That’s right. People thought it was about saving money, but it was really about dominance. Now those bureaucrats know I’m the man. They won’t forget it soon. You helped make sure of that.

M: That said, this country does have a problem with debt, and we only scratched the surface. You need to go after the big bucks.

T: Like what? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

M: The defense budget, too. Those four are where the money is.

T: I can’t do that. My voters rely on entitlement programs, and there are too many hawks in Congress to ignore.

M: Then the debt will continue to be a problem no matter what OMB tries. And I’m concerned about the tariffs. Are you trying to turn America into Peron’s Argentina, or are you using the tariffs as leverage to create more free trade? I can’t tell.

T: That’s my way, Elon. I like to keep people guessing. Keeping my options open helps keep our players on side. It also makes me the center of attention, which is very important.

M: But investors need to know what’s going on, even if the voters don’t. You can’t make America great without investment.

T: They’ll figure it out eventually. So will you. (Elon leaves)

Trump’s frenetic activity has invited comparisons with FDR’s 100 days. How do the two stack up?

FDR took office during the depths of the Great Depression. The American economy was on its knees, and there was no meaningful federal safety net. Using his massive majority in Congress, he pushed through legislation that addressed some of the worst impacts of the downturn. He also worked hard to regain the waning confidence of the American people. His first 100 days were a success.

Trump took office at a time when unemployment was at four percent and inflation was easing. Instead of pursuing legislation, he signed a blizzard of executive orders that were designed to wreck American institutions, violate the Constitution, and amass power to an unprecedented degree. His changing rationales for tariffs damaged consumer and investor confidence and threatened to send the economy into a slump. Does that sound like a success to you?

Scott Bessent argues that tariffs, when combined with tax cuts and deregulation, will make investment in America great again. Is he right?

Take the example of the president of a German car manufacturer. His company already makes some cars in the US for the American market, but that clearly isn’t enough for Trump. It sounds like Bessent wants him to move all of his operations to the US and export to the EU. Is that plausible? Would the EU really permit that to happen? How would he find a large enough pool of underemployed skilled workers in the US to operate the plants? What would happen to his extensive supply chain in Germany? How can he rely on Trump’s tariffs remaining stable when the rules can change at any time and for any reason?

In short, the answer is no. To make matters worse, Bessent seems to be assuming that America’s trade partners will sign agreements to let their manufacturing base be hollowed out. That isn’t going to happen, either; if the mass migration of industry to the US is going to occur, it will be the result of the shock-and-awe reciprocal tariff scheme, not the deals we have been promised in the interest of American export businesses and consumers.

Donald Trump started his second term as an elderly lame duck. Now his poll ratings are a potential threat to every GOP member of Congress. Does that mean we can expect more independence from them?

Not immediately, because most of them live in safe districts in which the greatest threat would be from a MAGA primary challenger, not a Democrat. If MAGA starts to splinter, however–and that could happen during a battle for the succession between the midterms and the 2028 election–the story could change.

On the one hand, the Medicaid cuts contemplated by the House will cost millions of Americans–many of them MAGA voters–their health insurance, and several GOP House members in swing districts their seats. On the other hand, pulling back from the cuts will force the GOP to either reduce the size of their tax cut or find another reliable source of revenue. That won’t be acceptable to the CLs in the House.

How will the circle be squared? By pushing responsibility on to state governments and pretending the cuts only address waste and fraud. That is unlikely to work, because the millions of people who lose their insurance will not identify themselves as either waste or fraud.

Imagine that Trump manages to bring trade with China to a complete halt. American companies dependent on revenues from exports to China would be ruined. At home, shelves would be empty, and prices would skyrocket. It would be a disaster.

But the trade deficit would be reduced to zero. According to Trump, that would make us rich again. Does that make sense to you?

David French argues that the religious right has become absorbed into the MAGA movement as a whole; it no longer has any independent existence. Is he right?

I agree with French on most things, but not this. The religious right gives unconditional support to the pagan Trump because it is convinced that only he can save it from cultural annihilation. It consequently is willing to tolerate whatever tactical retreats Trump deems necessary to protect his position at the national level. It will continue to pursue its particular interests in litigation and at the state level, however, and when Trump is out of the picture and MAGA splits, it will go its own way.

A large segment of the GOP is highly invested in the independence of Taiwan. Trump is not of their number; he sees Taiwan as just another freeloader, and he probably (and with some reason) doubts it can be successfully defended. What does that mean for Taiwan’s future?

I suspect that Trump sees Taiwan as his primary negotiating chip with Xi. He will promise not to defend it in exchange for a managed trade agreement and a free hand in the Western Hemisphere. It is a deal that Xi just might take, since it would effectively turn all of Asia into a Chinese sphere of influence.

The hawkish members of the GOP will be outraged, but they will keep quiet in public. No matter what indignity Trump inflicts on them, they will swallow it to maintain party unity and keep the left at bay.

To no one’s surprise, Mike Waltz has the distinction of being the first prominent Trump appointee to be removed from his job. In this case, however, Trump has given him a different job, perhaps in a futile effort to convince us that he doesn’t hire complete incompetents.

Hey, at least Waltz lasted longer than Michael Flynn. That’s something.

If history is any guide–and it usually is–Trump will appoint an establishment type to play a good cop, and the world will breathe a sigh of relief. That will be a mistake, because the good cops answer to the bad cop.