Cromwell

Viciousness somewhat mitigated by incompetence.

Trump meets with Lindsey Graham in the Oval Office.

T: Linseed! How are you doing?

G: Fine, Mr. President. Wow, there certainly is a lot of gold in here. I didn’t remember that.

T: Do you know why I put all the gold on the walls?

G: Because you want to be Louis XIV?

T: No, because gold is the color of winners, and I’m a winner. It reminds me of how much I’m winning.

G: Well, you certainly are owning the libs. You’ve wrecked the institutions they controlled. You sent troops to their cities to show you’re the boss. Those are wins, to be sure.

T: You bet. Wait until you see what I have planned for New York.

G: But you lost the elections.

T: Don’t be silly. I won the elections.

G: How? We got killed in New Jersey and Virginia, and Mamdani won in New York.

T: I wanted that to happen. Particularly Mamdani. It gives me something to run against next year.

G: You said you supported Cuomo.

T: Did you really believe that? I play chess when everyone else plays checkers. Just like Putin.

G: And then there is the Epstein thing.

T: Another win.

G: How did you win that one?

T: I fought off a Republican split. Everyone voted with me. That’s a huge win.

G: Of course, you tried to stop it for months.

T: The end is all that matters. It was another win.

G: What about your slumping polls?

T: Fake news. Everybody loves me, except the radical Marxist fascists and the press. That’s the real story.

G: What are you going to do about health care now that you won the shutdown?

T: Work on my concept of a plan. It’ll be great. Everyone will love it. Trust me on that.

G: It didn’t work out so well last time. Are you going to invade Venezuela?

T: Maybe. You never know. We’ll have to see.

G: You won’t even tell me?

T: Never question the great and powerful Oz, Linseed. (Graham leaves)

From his gold-plated aesthetics to his love for fossil fuels to his random interventions in the economy to his attempts to exercise power in his neighborhood to his authoritarian mindset, it is clear that Trump views MBS as a role model for his administration. What can we learn from the analogy?

First, given that the PIF has lost a lot of money, according to the NYT, Trump’s desire to direct the economy probably won’t end well. Second, it is worth noting that MBS is attempting to use his arbitrary power to bring Saudi Arabia kicking and screaming into the 21st century; Trump, on the other hand, prefers the society and the economy of 1950. Finally, Trump hasn’t ordered the killing of journalists or locked his oligarchs in a hotel and demanded money from them, but as he says, things happen.

If you view massive campaigns against immigrants as political acts rather than pure demonstrations of personal dominance, it makes sense for Trump to target places like Portland or Chicago. After all, ostentatious displays of law and order thrill the base, and Trump has little to lose in such bright blue cities. But what about Charlotte?

North Carolina is a purple state, and Charlotte has a long history of underperforming for the Democrats. Riling up the population there is likely to help Roy Cooper in 2026.

A charismatic, and apparently successful, strongman is a tough act to follow. He had some political skills of his own, and he did his best. But as the economy slumped and opposition mounted, he had to become more authoritarian to remain in control. In this, he succeeded, but in nothing else; the country’s economy collapsed, and a large percentage of the population left for greener pastures, leaving him in charge of an ash heap.

That’s Maduro. Could it also be J.D. Vance? TBD.

Bret Stephens, who never saw an American war he didn’t like, is predictably advocating for one in Venezuela. As I noted in a previous post, there is a reasonable case for intervention. Is it as compelling as Stephens thinks?

Leave aside the impact on world opinion, particularly in South America. Ignore the message it sends to Xi about Taiwan. How do you think the American people will react if Trump starts an unprovoked imperialist war–and that’s what it will be–on a transparently flimsy pretext and without strong public support and authorization from Congress? Does Stephens think that raising the national temperature by a few hundred degrees at this already volatile time is a good idea for American liberal democracy?

I certainly don’t. It’s easy to imagine the GOP describing any opposition to the war as treason. Where do you think that will lead?

Byron Donalds has already won the one-man Republican primary in Florida. Under normal circumstances, that would be enough. But will it be this time?

Not necessarily, for two reasons. First, Ron DeSantis desperately wants to maintain control of the GOP in his state in order to remain relevant for 2028, so a bitter proxy battle with Trump is probably on the table. Second, while a large segment of the GOP electorate enthusiastically supports black conservative candidates in order to prove (at least to themselves) that they aren’t racist, the Carlson/Fuentes episode establishes that there are plenty of open bigots within the party. How many, and does this mean DeSantis could become the preferred candidate of the extreme right element of the base? TBD.

What is a caudillo who can’t force his followers to support him? A man on golf cart, of course.

Obviously, the prospect of losing control of his party in a very public way was worse than anything in the files.

Tariffs are doing plenty of damage to the economy and Trump’s polls. Does that mean the Democrats will come out as dogmatic free traders in 2028?

No, because protectionism will probably remain popular in a number of swing states, and the worst of the impacts of the tariffs will probably be over by then. Americans will be used to them by 2028. You can, therefore, expect the Democrats to get rid of the worst ones in order to drive down prices, and to put the remaining ones into a conceptual framework that actually makes sense, but free trade as we knew it is gone for the foreseeable future.

To some extent, yes. A rebate would permit the country to enjoy the benefits of protectionism–the encouragement of local industries–without damaging the interests of consumers too much. It would be similar to cutting income taxes to offset the drag created by the adoption of a carbon tax.

But in this particular set of circumstances, it would increase the already swollen deficit and cause interest rates to rise. The tariff was supposed to be part of the fiscal mitigation for the BBB; now, that function would be gone. On the whole, therefore, it would be a mistake, which is why Bessent and lots of Republicans in Congress aren’t enthusiastic.

For decades, the Republican ideal of the rugged individual was the Marlboro Man. Handsome and charismatic, this cowboy would never even dream of asking for government assistance for anything.

But recently, the GOP idea of a rugged individual has focused more on a different mythical guy–the Music Man. In the eternal battle between knaves and fools, the GOP has decided to come down on the side of the knaves; the fools have only themselves to blame, and have no right to rely on government help. Why else do Republicans make such a priority out of eviscerating the CPB and the IRS?

Don’t you wonder how this could have happened?

The far right has always been with us, of course. But the intersection of the rise of the puritan left and the creation of the internet made it possible for extremists to proliferate and become more transgressive. Outrageous words and behavior became evidence of sincere and authentic opposition to the left. MAGA learned to embrace, or at least not to condemn, Hitler, because he wasn’t as bad as Joe Biden.

Trump has always indulged the neo-Nazis in the GOP. His willingness to shatter norms, after all, made him a role model for the extremists, whose votes were needed to defeat the left. Will J.D. follow the same path? The most recent evidence suggests that the answer is yes.

J.D. Vance looks like a bridge to everywhere. He has strong ties to the techno-aristocrats through his buddy Peter Thiel. He’s an outspoken conservative Catholic, albeit one with a shaky relationship with the Pope. He has connections with advocates of both the Godly Society and the New Confederacy. But he has elite credentials, too; he went to Yale Law School, and he can make a presentable case to NYT readers. A bit like George W. Bush, he is a member of the establishment he ostentatiously despises. With his abilities, connections, and resentments, he seems like a perfect successor to Trump.

But he has weaknesses, too. I’ve noted his problem with his capable Indian immigrant wife. His views about heritage Americans will offend hundreds of millions of voters who, according to him, are second-class citizens. And, of course, he will have to defend every inch of Trump’s ground even if it is resoundingly unpopular in 2028. That leaves the door open to challengers who don’t have those liabilities.

Bryan ran in 1896 as a supporter of cheap money, lower tariffs, and increased business regulation. McKinley advocated for the gold standard, high tariffs, and very limited regulation. With massive support from business interests, McKinley prevailed.

With the exception of the gold standard, Trump’s positions echo McKinley’s. And yet, he likes to portray himself as a populist, and people swallow it. Amazing!

The emails released by the Democrats don’t prove that Trump was an active Epstein collaborator; at most, they are more evidence that he was more aware of Epstein’s activities than he likes to let on. Should we sympathize with him for that reason?

No, because he was cynical enough to ride the wave when his loonier supporters said he was an instrument of God sent to smash the left-wing elitist pedophile ring. Trump isn’t one for introspection, but I bet he regrets that now.

Too late, big boy.