Category: Uncategorized

The crisis is coming. How will you know it’s here? When Trump unleashes the might of the military and federal law enforcement against American citizens whose only crime is to oppose him.

What will cause the crisis? It won’t happen until Trump feels threatened by the opposition. When will it occur? When the threat becomes intolerable to him, and when he is certain of the unconditional loyalty of the military and law enforcement. That could be as late as the 2028 election. But it could be earlier–around the midterms or in response to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision, a mass demonstration, effective blue state resistance, a self-created financial crisis, or a dangerous international event.

How will America react? TBD. One thing is for certain, however; history shows that a ruthless and single-minded minority with guns can get what it wants even against the will of a large majority.

We are already starting to hear it from some corners of the new administration–a recession would be good for the nation’s soul. We have become too concerned about material things, and not enough about God and the overall welfare of the community. A little suffering will refocus us, and for the better. Fewer toys for Christmas, and more Jesus.

The problem, of course, is that the administration is run by the richest man in the world and a former casino owner who likes nothing more than bragging about how wealthy he is. Is anybody going to accept the message about materialism from them?

Donald Trump is a pure pagan; his ethics revolve around power and money, and there is no room in his mental universe for any god but himself. So is Elon Musk; in fact, “Empathy is the enemy” may well be the least Christian statement ever made. In spite of this, American Christians have embraced these two men and their agendas. Why?

Because they have permitted themselves to believe that they face extermination at the hands of people who believe in Christian ethics, but not metaphysics–liberals, in other words. Only pagans, in their eyes, are strong and ruthless enough to save them, and power, not persuasion, is the way to get it done.

This will not end well for the Christians. Deliberately associating your movement with chaos and cruelty is not a good way to win hearts and minds.

On the once-again President Trump.

Falling polls turned him into a grump.

He tells us to trust

But he sounds like Liz Truss

And we’re heading straight into a slump.

Robert Moses has been a boogeyman for the left for decades due to his indifference to important American values. There are plenty of parks and useful roads in New York that wouldn’t exist without his energetic support, however. How can we change our regulatory system to keep the good side of Moses and expel the bad side?

Here are three ideas. First, give federal, state, and local governments the right to bypass the regular process on projects that are genuinely of overriding public importance. Second, put statutory deadlines in permitting process and enforce them. Third, find a way to compensate the people who wind up losing their rights in the expedited process in the name of the public interest. I have posted on ways to do this in zoning on previous occasions; the state and federal governments could surely find a way to cut taxes on regulatory victims in other cases.

Ezra Klein thinks it is too difficult to build things in America, and that the left’s enthusiasm for slow, methodical process is a big part of the reason. Is he right, and if so, what can be done about it?

He is correct, but the processes were created for a reason, as Trump reminds us every day. First, having set, transparent, enforceable procedural rules reduces the potential for corruption. Second, rules make arbitrary decisions with highly negative long-term results less likely. Third, they provide some degree of assurance that historically powerless people will have their voices heard. It is far less likely that interstate highways will be bulldozed through vibrant neighborhoods of poor people today than it was 50 years ago.

If we had no alternatives between the kind of autocracy supported by Trump and Musk or a regulatory swamp, I would choose the latter. There is, however, plenty of middle ground here. I will discuss ways of improving the system in my next post.

Can’t you just see it? Pete Hegseth’s army crosses over the border into Canada. Trump announces that, due to the irresponsibility of the Canadian voters, it has become necessary to annex the country by force. Just like Ukraine–Canada never had any right to exist, anyway.

Call it the American Anschluss.

As of the time I am writing this, it isn’t clear whether the Liberals have won a plurality or an absolute majority in yesterday’s election. What is clear is who lost–Trump and Elon Musk. Their repeated attempts to bully the Canadians into submission received the proper response from a liberal democracy. Now they will have to deal with the consequences.

Do you suppose Trump will have learned that being offensive to your friends is not a good way to get what you want? Don’t bet on it. Trump only has one speed, and diplomacy–except with autocrats, of course–isn’t it.

There was never any chance of a boatload of great deals within 90 days, particularly since Trump has no idea what to ask for in order to eliminate most of our bilateral trade deficits. He can’t afford to walk away with completely empty hands, however. As a result, the most likely short-term outcome will be a series of agreements merely to negotiate further, which he will trumpet as a colossal success.

Right. If the agreements come at all, they will take years and be much more limited in scope than the GOP reactionaries want. The beneficiaries will be restricted to a few industries (energy companies, weapons manufacturers, and possibly tech companies) and will do nothing to bring about the Godly Society.

National Socialism was not an ideologically monolithic movement. On the one hand, there were populist leaders who took the socialist part of the party’s name seriously; they wanted to absorb the regular military into the SA and favor workers over industrialists. On the other hand, business interests who supported the party as a bulwark against communism wanted no part of rights for workers, and the military remained aloof and dangerous. At some point, Hitler, who had tried to remain above the fray, had to choose.

He did. The outcome was the Night of the Long Knives. The populists lost, bigly.

Is this ringing any bells for you?

Ignoring court orders and deporting people to El Salvador without providing reasonable notice and hearings is a crime. The Trump tariff scheme is a blunder. So far, Trump is paying a price in the polls and the markets for the latter, but not the former. A few years from now, will America’s opinions have changed? It depends on what happens next; Trump has been somewhat deterred on the economic front, but emboldened, if anything, on his tropical gulag.

The question keeps coming up–should the Democrats just talk about the tariffs and shut up about the more popular deportations? The correct answer is that it is unnecessary to choose. It is essential to emphasize both.

A note to my readers: Regular posting will resume next Monday.

Trump can, of course, dismiss all of the stories about tariffs and stagflation in the MSM as “fake news.” But we are seeing a wave of commercials from car dealers and furniture stores telling us to buy now, before the massive wave of price increases hits. Even the base can’t ignore that kind of information.

In spite of the massive difference in style and tone, you could make a good case that Trump 1.0 was consistent with the administrations of Reagan and George W. Bush. The tax cuts and efforts at deregulation were completely orthodox and were inspired by the PBP faction; the Reactionaries, in spite of being the largest group within the GOP tent, had no economic program of their own; and while Trump frequently resorted to abrasive reactionary rhetoric, he took few practical steps to win the culture war outside of appointing three Supreme Court justices. Is the same true of Trump 2.0?

No. The tariff scheme is a reactionary economic program that frightens the PBPs, and Trump is fighting the culture war with executive orders, threats, and lawsuits, not just idle words. The Reactionaries are fully in charge today; the PBPs are just along for a very bumpy ride.

Right-wing populists, by definition, reject elites; to them, what matters is faith, power, and the will, not expertise. To a right-wing populist leader, the best qualifications for office are blind loyalty and ruthlessness, not competence–hence, Pete Hegseth and Kristi Noem. As a result, populist governments have a poor track record of success. If you don’t believe me, just ask Boris Johnson.

I have never had any doubt that Trump 2.0 would be a failure. The real question is what Trump will do when he is confronted by the consequences of that failure. Will he change course and rely on spin to cover his tracks, or will he double down and become even more authoritarian? We don’t know the answer to that question yet.

I can only see two possible outcomes to Trump’s trade negotiations. If he decides that the ultimate objective is to isolate China, not to stop trade in the name of eliminating bilateral deficits, he will get the rest of the world to buy more American weapons (an achievable goal), energy (probably not enforceable), and agricultural products (ditto) in exchange for lifting the tariffs. This will do very little to bring back the economy of the 1950s, and it won’t be worth the economic pain it is causing in the short run, but it is an outcome that makes geopolitical sense.

If Trump sticks to the notion of reviving low-value American industry and eliminating bilateral trade deficits, however, there will be no deals, and confidence in our economy will dissolve very quickly. Faced with collapsing support at home, Trump will be tempted to treat his failures as an “emergency” which requires further despotism at home. That is the result which is truly to be feared.