Category: Uncategorized

In an interview with Ezra Klein, the right-wing populist pundit Oren Cass concedes that the Trump regime of deportations and tariffs would create short-term pain in the form of higher inflation, but insists it will be worth it in the end. He also points to the revenue raised by the tariff as an unacknowledged part of the equation. Is he right?

Yes and no. Joe Chamberlain supported tariffs in the late 19th and early 20th century in an effort, not just to bind the British Empire more closely together, but to pay for the beginnings of a welfare state. I see no evidence that Trump has any such plans. Based on his rhetoric to date and his past behavior, the revenue will be used to compensate farmers and other businesses that are impacted by foreign retaliation for the tariffs and to cut taxes for the wealthy. Average Americans will pay higher prices for consumer goods and receive nothing in return.

In a pathetic attempt to emulate Trump, Biden has been arguing that the efforts to get him to stand down are being orchestrated by the “elites,” while he has support from the blue base. Is he right?

Trump unquestionably has a base. It represents about half of the GOP. Biden, on the other hand, was the nominee in 2020 solely because both the party leadership and the voters correctly perceived that he was the candidate who was the least vulnerable to a Trump identity onslaught. He doesn’t have a “base” that is large enough to take seriously, and the current principal rationale for his candidacy–that he, unlike Trump, is fit for the presidency– disappeared during the debate. So why continue, except as some sort of an ego booster?

Trump has been very open about his plans to use law enforcement to harass his political enemies and to replace thousands of apolitical experts in the federal government with political hacks. Those initiatives, however deplorable, do not make him a fascist. The weaponization of law enforcement goes back to Richard Nixon; the changes to the bureaucracy have a pedigree that extends all the way back to Andrew Jackson.

The line between Nixon and fascism will be defined by the answers to two questions:

1. Will Trump ignore court orders that he dislikes?
2. Will he use his emergency powers and the Insurrection Act to crush dissent?

Even Nixon didn’t do anything like that. Crossing that line makes America a fascist country.

I don’t know the answers to my questions. What I do know is: Trump is angry and wants revenge; he frequently expresses his contempt for the judicial system, most recently by violating the gag order in his criminal trial; he openly mused about using the Insurrection Act during his first term; he frequently uses language associated with dictators to describe his opponents; he encouraged the use of violence to overturn the results of the 2020 election; he will be surrounded by people who will egg him on instead of trying to stop him in his second term; Republicans in Congress will do nothing to keep him in bounds; he cannot be removed from office through the impeachment process; and he is effectively immune from criminal prosecution if and when he leaves the White House. Why would I give him the benefit of the doubt under those circumstances?

I think J.D. Vance’s ideas about foreign policy are irresponsible. His position on abortion is extreme. His plans for tariffs and illegal immigrants make no economic sense under today’s conditions. He completely disregards climate change as a problem. He defends Trump’s actions on January 6. And yet, I find his selection as the GOP VP nominee to be slightly encouraging. Why?

Because my concerns about Vance are purely about policy. He understands the concept of public service; I haven’t seen any kind of authoritarian streak in him; he’s not an obvious racist; he’s driven by ideology, not personal hatreds or arbitrary whims; he’s not a habitual liar; he has some history of working across the aisle; and he seems to have some genuine concern about the welfare of working people. Making him the automatic frontrunner for 2028 in a sense normalizes the MAGA movement; we can examine his ideas and agree or disagree with him instead of viewing him as an existential threat to liberal democracy in America, which is the way the system is supposed to work.

Besides, how are the alternatives better? Ron DeSantis made his name by depriving us of our First Amendment rights. Tom Cotton would start wars abroad and shoot protesters at home. Josh Hawley is–well, you remember the photo. And we don’t have to worry about a Trump monarchy, with Don Jr. as his successor.

The fake interview continues after Vance is announced as Trump’s VP choice.

C: Congratulations! Or would you prefer condolences?

V: Well, the job has been described as a bucket of warm spit.

C: Why do you think Trump chose you?

V: You really should ask him that question. If I had to guess, I would say it’s because we’re ideologically compatible, and because I just like the guy. It also didn’t hurt that his son likes me.

C: Why did you agree to it? Do you really want to relive the Mike Pence experience?

V: Pence was obsequious, to be sure, but he really wasn’t on the same wavelength as Trump. I am. I won’t have to suck up to Trump because we believe the same things.

C: Lots of people–Bolton and Barr particularly come to mind–thought that Trumpism was an ideology, and they could help refine it. They found out that Trumpism was just about Donald Trump, with all of his many weaknesses included. Why would your experience be different than theirs?

V: Let’s break that down into chunks. As to Bolton, he never really agreed with the premises of Trump’s foreign policy. Trump just used him as a bad cop. Barr was a bit different, but in the end, he thought the law should prevail over politics. He didn’t understand that everything was about power, and you had to do everything you could to hang on to it.

C: Trump will love that last response. He doesn’t have any respect for the law. You’re a lawyer by training, but it appears you agree with him.

V: I’m not in law school anymore. I’m a realist. The left cares about nothing but power. We have to fight fire with fire or die trying.

C: Do you see your job as creating a coherent reactionary ideology out of Trumpism, as opposed to relying on the whims of one dude?

V: Yes, although I don’t think it will be that hard. On the big issues, we’re in complete agreement.

C: Those being Ukraine, China, tariffs, the border, and revenge against the left?

V: Yes.

C: As everyone knows, there was a time when you despised Trump. And your book made the case that the problem was with white workers themselves; the government was only guilty of sticking its nose where it didn’t belong. How do you explain your total change in position, which looks like opportunism to lots of people?

V: I had an epiphany. Read the Douthat interview. It explains everything. I didn’t want to be on the side of businessmen who wanted to screw over their workers.

C: Like Peter Thiel?

V: Peter isn’t like that.

C: You claim to be pro-worker, and yet you support tax cuts for the wealthy and oppose unions. How does that make sense?

V: We’re going to raise wages through tariffs and the deportation of illegals.

C: Tariffs don’t result in higher wages–just inefficiency and higher profits for big business. Have you read anything about the 1890s?

V: Enough to know what I know.

C: Lots of prominent economists have said that tariffs and deportations will cause inflation and higher interest rates. Do you claim to know more than they do?

V: They’re just members of the entitled elite. They’ve been wrong about everything else. Why wouldn’t they be wrong about this?

C: Because logic tells you that will happen. The labor shortages of 2021 and 2022 are recent proof. How did that turn out?

V: We’ll bring millions of people back into the workforce with higher wages. That will solve the inflation problem.

C: Yeah, I can just imagine going back to work at age 66 in a meatpacking plant because they’re paying $25 an hour. There is no pool of unemployed workers except–unfortunately for you–immigrants. How ’bout them apples?

V: There may be some short-term pain. In the end, it will be worth it. We need to take our country back. That’s more important that economic growth.

C: How will you respond when the Democrats use your words from 2016 against you and Trump? Particularly about dictatorship?

V: Trump won’t be a dictator. His first term proves that.

C: But he was talked out of any number of authoritarian actions by the adults in the room. They won’t be there in a second term. He’ll be free to do whatever he wants as long as the military follows his orders.

V: The judicial system will restrain him.

C: What, the man who violated the gag order ten times?

V: You just have to trust us. We’ve earned your trust.

C: Thanks for your time. I may want to ask questions about foreign policy at a later date.

The Supreme Court was wrong. So was the D.C. Circuit. Only I, Judge Cannon, am in full possession of the truth. Bow down to me, world.

So, in effect, says the judge, who makes Judge Kacsmaryk look like a shrinking violet. The irony, of course, is that she had already delayed the trial to the point that it was never going to take place before the election, so the chief beneficiary of this decision in the short run may be . . . wait for it. . . Hunter Biden.

Of course, the decision is not going to stand, so Hunter shouldn’t get his hopes too high. In the end, Judge Cannon’s only “accomplishment” will be to further damage the credibility of the judicial system, which is pretty much on the ropes already.

There are a number of topics that are inevitably going to be included in the speech. You can take it to the bank that Trump will: rant endlessly about illegal immigration; portray himself as a victim of a weaponized law enforcement and judicial system; complain about crime; claim that Biden has sold us out to the Chinese; and attack Biden on inflation without providing any plausible plan for reducing the cost of living. But what are the known unknowns?

Here are the questions for the speech:

1. Will Trump try to justify his tariffs?
2. Will he give any specifics about his plans for revenge?
3. Will he say anything about Gaza other than to claim that it wouldn’t have happened on his watch?
4. Will he provide any specifics about his immigrant deportation camps?
5. Will he even touch climate change?
6. Will he threaten war with Mexico?
7. Will he say anything about withdrawing from NATO?
8. Will he repeat his claim that “everyone” wanted an end to Roe v. Wade?

My guess is that the answer to all of those questions, with the possible exception of the last, is no, but we’ll see.

My readers will recall that, given the state of discourse in this country, I predicted on multiple occasions that a prominent political figure would be shot during the campaign. I didn’t think it would be Trump. After all, he has Secret Service protection, and his side has the guns.

This despicable crime is yet another disaster, for several reasons. First, it invites retaliation by the side that believes in violence. Second, it probably gives Trump even more reason to believe he is invulnerable. Third, it plays perfectly into his martyrdom narrative. Finally, it gives him and his supporters even more reason to bay for vengeance.

On Fox News, this will play as the left-wing equivalent of January 6. Just what we need . . .

It will happen in three ways. First of all, the far left will be at the front of the battle against the excesses of Trumpism; the center will follow out of loyalty and admiration. That’s what happened in 2020. Second, while legislation won’t be at the center of Trump 2.0 for the reasons I set forth in a previous post, there undoubtedly will come a time when Trump will be demanding the end of the filibuster. Since Mitch will no longer be in charge, it could happen, which would make the approval of progressive legislation much easier when the left is back in charge. Third, Trump’s likely refusal to comply with court orders with which he disagrees will establish a precedent that the left can use in subsequent years to “reform” the Supreme Court. The Court will no longer be an obstacle to radical change if the government can get away with ignoring its decisions.

Ross Douthat once again makes the argument that the Democrats really aren’t that worried about a Trump presidency, because they refuse to move to the center to win swing voters. Is he right?

My question is, what unpopular left-leaning positions could Biden eschew in order to win over centrists? On policy, he is almost perfectly aligned with the preferences of a majority of the American people, if the polls are to be believed.

The Democrats aren’t losing because they want to protect the environment, or because they want to tax rich people, or because they support abortion rights. America agrees with them, not the GOP, on all of those points. The Democrats are losing because the public is pissed off about inflation and immigration and because Biden is too old, not because the left is viewed as being in thrall to wokeness. If you don’t believe me, ask Trump and DeSantis; the latter ran on the wokeness issue and lost, while the former is saying nothing about it in his campaign.

Biden has lost ground after the debate, but he hasn’t completely cratered. Why? Because the blue team is far more motivated by its fear of Trump than by its feelings for him. People like me will vote for him in spite of his increasingly obvious infirmities because the alternative is so awful. No imaginable set of facts can change that.

But the election will be decided by a few million independent voters who are motivated primarily either by the state of the economy or by their perceptions of which clearly dreadful candidate is less unacceptable. Biden lost a large percentage of the latter category by his performance at the debate. It is unlikely that he can do anything to win them back. That means his only chances of winning the election are some sort of complete Trump meltdown or a remarkably positive change in the condition of the country. Will lower interest rates do the trick, by creating euphoria among investors? How about a cease-fire in the Middle East? I doubt it, but maybe.

A documentary on the New Testament that I was watching a few years ago made the point that there was no real documentary or archaeological evidence to support the account in the Gospel of Matthew regarding the Massacre of the Innocents. The commentators acknowledged, however, that the story couldn’t be completely written off, because the record showed that Herod was perfectly capable of ordering the massacre.

I think about this frequently when I project the path of Trump 2.0. I don’t know for certain that Trump would use his emergency powers and his control of the military to destroy liberal democracy in America. The likelihood is that he won’t try to send me and other people who despise him to a concentration camp. The one thing I can’t say, however, is that he is incapable of it. In addition, there will be no adults in the room to discourage him this time around, and he now knows there will be no legal consequences for him if he acts illegally. We will all be living normal lives purely at his sufferance.

That’s why I will vote for Biden if he is my only plausible alternative in November even though I have grave doubts about his ability to do the job. What else can I do? It’s literally a matter of life or death.

About his style of governance, nothing. Trump is too much of a crazed autocrat to permit anyone in his administration to tell him what to do. If you don’t believe me, just ask Mike Pence.

But it will tell us where, if anywhere, he thinks his vulnerabilities are in the coming election. If he picks Rubio, he’s concerned about keeping the Haley voters on board. If Vance is the choice, he wants to fire up the base, as usual. If he chooses a woman, he’s still worried about how he is perceived by over half the electorate.

If it’s Burgum, he doesn’t think he needs any help to win the election; he just doesn’t want someone who can ever outshine or criticize him.

In case you hadn’t noticed, wokeness is the dog that isn’t barking in the Trump campaign, which has focused primarily on revenge and illegal immigration. Why?

For two reasons. First, Trump correctly sees that wokeness is too remote from the lives of his base to make much of an impact. Second, the man on golf cart is primarily focused on revenge; to my knowledge, no trans people served on the January 6 committee or attempted to prosecute him.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that fighting wokeness won’t be a priority once Trump takes office. The reactionaries around him will see to that even if he doesn’t care much about it.

A column in yesterday’s NYT made the interesting point that public perceptions of the war in Ukraine are being largely dictated by analogies to World War I and World War II. The World War II proponents see Putin as Hitler, and any attempt to negotiate with him as Munich; the World War I supporters, on the other hand, think the most important task is to avoid stumbling into a wider conflict. Which analogy is better?

The origins of the war, which is an exercise in naked unprovoked imperialism, much more closely resemble World War II than World War I. The war itself in every respect looks more like World War I. By my calculation, we have reached the 1917 stage of the war; neither side is capable of gaining much ground, but the possibility of outside intervention looms. In 1917, the Russian government was collapsing, but the US was entering the war; today, the issue is the American election, and the possibility of Trump changing sides.

The other part of the analogy that matters now is Putin’s ultimate objective in starting the war. Is he more Hitler or Hindenburg? The question is less significant than you might think, because under the pressure of the British blockade, the Germans were becoming more and more aggressive in their war aims by 1918. The Brest-Litovsk treaty was not far removed from what Hitler would have demanded in 1941, and the Germans probably would have turned France into a Vichy-like state if their 1918 offensives had been completely successful.

In other words, whether Putin is a figure from World War I or World War II, he cannot be trusted to stop with Ukraine.