Cromwell

About a year ago, I identified three very different right-wing visions for America: the Godly Society; the New Confederacy; and the Techno-Aristocracy. How are those dreams faring under Trump 2.0?

The Godly Society is foundering. Trump has delivered on his promises by jacking up tariffs and instituting mass deportations, but manufacturing employment is actually down. There is no sign that America is about to enter into an industrial renaissance which will permit women to leave the workforce, get married, and have lots of babies. It’s not going to happen.

The New Confederacy had one huge symbolic victory–red state troops are being deployed in blue states, ostensibly to reduce crime, but really to show that Trump and his reactionary base are in charge. Other than that, however, there has been no meaningful progress on a “national divorce.”

The techno-aristocrats, however, are doing very well for themselves. Trump has treated them as national champions and has thrown lots of energy into deregulating AI. Share prices and investment are soaring. The concerns of the base about the impacts of AI on the workforce are being ignore. Will that last, particularly if things go awry? TBD.

There are a myriad of reasons for the rising cost of housing. They include: increased costs for materials; a shortage of construction workers, which started with the Great Recession and has never been resolved; overly restrictive state and local building regulations; demands from younger buyers for homes with far better amenities than their parents enjoyed; and a lack of innovation relating to building practices, probably exacerbated by unions. Trump’s tariffs, deportations, and efforts to protect single-family zoning districts are only making things worse. What could the Democrats offer in 2028?

Reversing Trump’s policies would be a good start. They could offer to provide financial assistance for worker training programs and better local zoning practices. On the rest of it, the federal government can’t do much except elevate the issues in the consciousness of the public and hope the private sector responds accordingly.

Trump is trying to decide what to do with FEMA. Here’s what the factions would tell him:

1. CDs: FEMA should be strengthened, but its functions should not change. People impacted by disasters need help from the rest of us, and many states and local governments simply don’t have the resources to cope with monster wildfires and storms.
2. CLs: Get rid of it! Disaster relief is a state function. FEMA is just encouraging them to fall into the hammock of federal dependency.
3. PBPs: It depends on where we’re located. We appreciate the help in affected states, but we dislike paying taxes to assist others.
4. Reactionaries: Keep FEMA solely to help real Americans in distress in red states. Use disaster relief for leverage on culture war issues in blue states.

Is it any wonder Trump is clearly struggling with this issue?

There is a low-level battle going on within the Democratic Party which pits the proponents of “abundance” against advocates of the redistribution of wealth. The two are not mutually exclusive, but it is likely that the 2028 primaries will be a debate between the two sides. What are the pros and cons of “abundance?”

“Abundance” is not synonymous with economic growth; it is an effort to identify and eliminate systemic problems which unnecessarily slow down public improvements and drive up the costs of essential services provided by the market. It is about making the system faster and more efficient without resorting to Trumpian overreach and capriciousness.

The great advantage of “abundance” is that it doesn’t cost much money, which will be important in an environment in which the deficit is enormous and climbing and interest rates are correspondingly elevated. As a result, it will appeal to centrist swing voters who want better government without higher taxes. The great disadvantage is that there is no single “abundance” magic bullet. Finding and eliminating systemic blockages will be a lengthy and prosaic process which operates at all levels of government, not just in Washington, and threatens powerful vested interests, including some that are vital to the Democratic Party.

To his credit, Trump isn’t really a warmonger, so it is safe to assume that the military buildup in the Caribbean is intended to pressure Maduro to leave peacefully. Unfortunately, Maduro knows that, so he is unlikely to comply. Then what?

My guess is that Trump’s plan would consist of a targeted strike on Maduro himself and a combination of bribes and threats to keep the rest of the Venezuelan security apparatus in line. The opposition would then come to power without the benefit of an invasion. Could that work?

It could, but it probably wouldn’t, and hope is not a strategy. If Trump really wants regime change, he will have to suck it up and order an invasion; air strikes alone would not be sufficient. I suspect he would have to use around 50,000 troops for that purpose. Would MAGA be happy about that? Would Congress authorize it? TBD.

The NSS isn’t just a massive insult to Europeans, international institutions, and weak, woke Democrats; it is a rebuke to Reaganite Republicans in Congress, as well. One would expect them to respond. Has it happened?

No. Mitch and company don’t have anything to say about a document that is completely inconsistent with their view of the world. That tells you everything you need to know about the state of the GOP.

On the pretext of a bogus emergency, Trump sends a large contingent of regular troops and red state National Guard members to cities in blue and purple states. They arrest the local political and intellectual leaders, who are ultimately sent to Third World prisons; reliable reactionaries are appointed to replace them. Unfriendly TV stations are taken over and left-leaning newspapers and universities are closed. The airports are put under federal control. Demonstrators are arrested or shot on site. In this way, dissent is completely quelled.

The internet is brought under control on a federal level, since it doesn’t recognize state boundaries, and Democrats in Washington are imprisoned, but for the most part, the red states are left alone. Some red state governors follow Trump’s example and imprison government critics; others continue to tolerate some level of criticism. Federal control increases as dissenters flee to the red states, but it never reaches the level that is experienced in blue states.

That’s all it takes, folks. And it would probably be blessed by the Supreme Court. This is why the Court’s ultimate decision on the scope of Trump’s emergency powers is so important.

Finally, there is the Western Hemisphere. Trump is saying that it is America’s exclusive sphere of influence. We will use our military and economic power to dominate our neighborhood and exclude outsiders. Chinese investors and drug dealers are in trouble.

This is old-fashioned imperialism. As it applies to the manufacturing and transportation of illegal drugs, it is bound to fail, just as it has for the last 50 years. As it applies to large left-leaning South American countries, it is a recipe either for disastrous military interventions or, more likely, for noisy economic conflicts that make everyone poor and angry without coming to any resolution. And for friendly right-wing governments, it is a green light for thuggish authoritarian rule.

Ross Douthat thinks that the fears of liberals that Trump and Hegseth want to use the military to create the Republic of Gilead are paranoid. Is he right?

Let’s look at the record. Hegseth is a member of a church which has extremely reactionary views about families and gender. He has openly identified the left as being an enemy of the real America. He has expressed skepticism about women serving in the military. He has already run off transgender military members. He has sacked the lawyers who could restrain his judgments about the use of force. He has returned some military bases to their previous Confederate names. He has supported attacking boats operated by noncombatants in violation of international law on the obviously spurious basis that the boat occupants are “narco-terrorists.” Are you reassured by any of that?

His boss, for his part, has advocated for shooting demonstrators, has identified the left as being an enemy of America, and has sent troops to blue cities to prove that he’s in charge. You may also recall that he tried to overthrow the government in January 2021, and that the Supreme Court has given immunity for practically everything he does while in office.

The bottom line here is that Trump and Hegseth have the resources to make America a fascist state, and there is nothing except public opinion to stop them if they try. In addition, there is nothing in their ideology that would prevent them from giving it a go. Only inertia, illusions about their popularity, and some lingering respect for liberal democracy could stop them. That doesn’t sound like paranoia to me.

Europe needs a powerful dose of tough love, according to the NSS. It is in terminal cultural and economic decline. It can afford to protect itself, but it sponges off America, instead. It lets in way too many immigrants, who are making it unrecognizable. It doesn’t protect free speech for nationalists. Perhaps if we slap it around hard and often enough, it will change its ways.

This is what I refer to as the “undiplomatic offensive.” In the end, it is more likely to alienate the Europeans, and make a united front against China impossible, than to force real constructive change.

C: We’re almost a year into Trump 2.0, and less than a year to the midterms. How do you feel about the coming year?

M: Very, very worried.

S: Cautiously optimistic.

C: Mark, why are you so worried?

M: I’ll break it down into economics and politics. On the economic front, Trump brings instability to everything he touches, and so many things could go wrong. The tariffs continue to be a problem. My auto dealership is still selling 2025 models because a 2026 car was subject to tariffs and has to be priced much higher. The car companies are losing billions as a result. We could have a market crash due to the deflating of an AI bubble. Unregulated crypto could also cause a crash. Who knows?

On the political front, we have the possibility of armed intervention in our cities, and even in the election. That kind of uncertainty is bad for business, and for my profits. I’m pulling back, watching, and waiting. Most everyone I know is doing the same thing.

S: Of course you are, you RINO.

C: Sebastian, why are you optimistic, and why is that optimism tempered by caution?

S: I’m optimistic because Donald Trump is president, and I believe in him. The worst of the tariff impacts are over–now we get the benefits. There hasn’t been any explosion in inflation. Most of all, I know Trump is going to continue kicking the people I hate. For me, that’s what success is all about. It’s not about money so much as showing the elites who’s in charge.

The caution comes when I see the polls and think about past midterms. The Republicans could lose without Trump on the ballot. Then what? Two years of constitutional crises. We don’t really need that.

M: At least we agree on that much.

C: Let’s make some specific predictions for the new year. Is there a new war with Iran?

S: No. Trump didn’t really want to do that. Iran is over for now.

M: Agreed.

C: Do we invade Venezuela?

S: We don’t have to. Maduro leaves. The democratically elected group takes power and gives Trump an interest in their oil in an expression of gratitude. The Venezuelan refugees go home. It’s yet another great Trump victory.

M: That’s way too optimistic. Maduro stays. Trump has to decide whether to violate his principles and offend some of the base by invading or to look like an impotent fool. Fortunately, he has an underappreciated gift for spinning his defeats into victories. He backs down.

C: Does the Ukraine war end?

S: Trump makes it crystal clear that America will no longer help Ukraine fight this hopeless war. The Russians start to advance more rapidly, and the Euros can’t help. Ukraine ultimately makes a deal along the lines that Trump has proposed, because, at last, the government understands that the Russians have all of the cards.

M: Both the Russians on the one hand and the Euros and Ukrainians on the other do their best to play Trump to keep him from supporting the other side. Trump can’t stick to any position for more than a few weeks or so. In the meantime, the war goes on with little change.

C: See you next year.

Given America’s, shall we say, complicated history with the Middle East. the NSS is surprisingly bullish on the region. As the story goes, since Trump and Bibi have crushed the terrorists, and America is the predominant world supplier of energy, we can turn our attention away from security and oil to commercial objectives. There is plenty of money to be made with the Arabs. A golden age, in every possible sense, is about to begin.

But plenty of American presidents have attempted unsuccessfully to disengage with the Middle East. The sources of instability are still out there. The Palestinians still have a vote on their future. The golden age will probably turn to mud.

The most interesting thing about this section of the NSS is the apparent absence of an America First exception for Israel. Given that Trump only believes in interests, not shared values, this makes perfect sense. It also helps him with the Nick Fuentes elements of his own party. If you are Bibi, however, you should be very worried.

To no one’s surprise, the Court appears to be leaning towards accommodating Trump in the Slaughter case. The following observations are pertinent:

1. The issue should not be partisan; President Newsom would have the same rights as Trump. Nevertheless, the vote will likely fall on partisan grounds.
2. The Court will be overturning a precedent that is 90 years old.
3. In addition, it will be invalidating clear language in a wide range of statutes. SCOTUS is only supposed to do that as an absolute last resort.
4. It will also reject a distinction in a previous Roberts opinion between agencies with a single head and no legislative or judicial power and other independent agencies. In separation of power terms, that made some sense. Roberts will have to either lie about the facts in the instant case or repudiate his own arguments.
5. The basis for the decision will not really be either textual or originalist. Independent agencies of the type created in the early 20th century didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written.
6. The basis will actually be the views of six justices on a political question relating to the proper implementation of the separation of powers. In that sense, the decision will be reminiscent of the immunity case, which was not based on facts, text, legislative history, or case law, but on the manner in which the majority felt the Constitution should have been written.
7. The most interesting section of the majority opinion will be the part in which the justices try to distinguish the Fed from all other independent agencies without sounding cynical or ridiculous. Will they succeed? TBD.

Power has been leaking out of Congress into the executive branch all year. SCOTUS is expected to ratify part of that process by eliminating independent agencies, with the possible exception of the Fed; the oral argument on the case that will overturn the pertinent 90-year-old precedent is today. What happens then? What can Congress do to save itself?

SCOTUS is effectively demanding that Congress legislate constantly and clearly to force the executive branch to do its bidding. In the current hyper-partisan environment, that means eliminating the filibuster, with all of the risks that entails. There simply is no other solution.

There is plenty for Xi Jinping to like in the NSS. Trump explicitly disclaims any desire to hector authoritarian states on human rights; his interventions will only take place in Europe. He believes in power, not rules, and gives a green light to large nations to work their will. And he advocates for a Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which practically invites China to do the same and invade Taiwan.

The NSS does support protecting Taiwan, to be sure, but based solely on American economic interests, not the security of our allies. The document demands that the Asian allies beef up their defense spending while offering nothing but tariffs in return. Any notion of solidarity on the basis of liberal democratic values is, of course, completely off the table.

Trump makes it completely clear that he views China primarily as an economic threat to the United States, not an ideological or military adversary. His principal objective is to reduce the Chinese trade surplus. That could be done by signing agreements with our Asian allies that bind them more closely to America, but Trump has done precisely the opposite with his trade policies. As a result, regardless of the suggestions that the objective is to enhance the Biden approach of flexible containment, it is hard to read the NSS, in the real world, as anything but the beginning of a spheres of influence doctrine.