Cromwell

Trump is now firing veteran prosecutors who are telling him that there is no legal case against his political enemies. The message here is clear–there is no place in the DOJ for ethical attorneys.

Even right-wing judges–Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, to name two–have to be appalled by this development. But will they do anything about it? Not a chance! They will continue to pretend that it is business as usual, that Trump is the same as any other president, and that the DOJ is still entitled to presumptions of regularity and fair play. Why? Because they can’t handle the truth.

While the Chinese have yet to confirm this, it appears that Trump has made a deal on the future of Tik Tok that is favorable to his side. The real question now is what Xi managed to extract from him in return. Since Trump has very strong views on trade issues, the most likely concession would be geopolitical, and would probably involve Taiwan. In other words, it is possible that he has traded an island of extreme economic, political, and military importance for an app that features short videos. We will see.

ABC capitulated to Trump because its case wasn’t ironclad and it feared setting a bad precedent. CBS, with a stronger case, made a deal to avoid nasty regulatory consequences. The WSJ and the NYT have shown no interest in settling defamation cases in which the requested relief was in the billions of dollars. The NYT case, which was just filed a few days ago, has already been dismissed on the basis that Trump’s bombastic pleading style violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defamation cases are obviously part of Trump’s tool kit when it comes to crushing dissent. Based on the current case law, they have little chance of success. What is he thinking? Three things: first, the mere size of the demanded relief may be enough to intimidate the MSM; second, that he might get lucky and draw a Trump judge (that didn’t happen in the NYT case); and third, that the Supreme Court could decide to overrule New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Thomas has shown a strong inclination to do just that, although it is unlikely he can get a majority for that position.

Larry Ellison is a tech titan and a Trump-aligned Republican. He and his son (apparently a Biden donor) are attempting to buy Warner Brothers, which controls, among other things, CNN. They already succeeded in purchasing CBS and are making it a more Trump-friendly network. They may also be in line to own some or all of Tik Tok once the details of Trump’s deal with the Chinese are known.

If you can’t beat them, buy them; that’s a page out of the Viktor Orban playbook. With Musk already controlling Sewer and Disney and the WaPo apparently neutered, the only major media that haven’t capitulated to Trump are the NYT and NBC, the former of which has been sued for $15 billion. More on that tomorrow.

I’ve been saying it for years. I think left-wing mobs policing politically incorrect speech on the internet are deplorable, but reactionaries will use the far greater powers of government to move the window of acceptable speech well to the right. That’s much more dangerous.

That day is here. The sliver of good news is that, barring a lurch towards unvarnished authoritarianism–which is by no means off the table–the likelihood of successful criminal prosecutions for “hate speech” is very low. There is no federal statute defining and prohibiting “hate speech,” and there is no prospect of one being enacted in the near future. The First Amendment, Pam Bondi’s comments notwithstanding, does not contain an exception for “hate speech.” Even Trump judges would show some respect for the First Amendment, and some right-wing commentators are uneasy about limiting “hate speech.” After all, they know those arguments could be used against them if the shoe is on the other foot.

Trump and his authoritarian friends have plenty of other weapons to quash dissent, however. I will be analyzing each of them in posts throughout the week.

As we have seen over the last few years, both the left and the right have crackpots who believe in the utility of violence. It doesn’t help that they have virtually unlimited access to guns. But only one side has militias. There are no left-leaning versions of the Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys. For now, at least.

This is a fundamental difference between the left and right that doesn’t get enough attention.

The Democrats are depressed. Ross Douthat thinks they can get over it by going to church. Ezra Klein thinks they should focus more on finding ways to build stuff. Is either of them right?

The truth is, the Democrats are depressed for two reasons. First, the combination of the McConnell Project and the markets have made it impossible for them to accomplish very much in Washington. The federal system and gerrymandering make it difficult for them to win majorities in both houses; the filibuster makes it almost impossible to move legislation through the Senate; and the judicial system strikes down most of what they do actually accomplish. If you don’t believe me, just ask Joe Biden, whose ambitious plans to uproot the dollar store economy ultimately failed for these reasons. The second reason is that the system is letting Trump do virtually everything he wants. How can the left stop him without overthrowing what is left of the Constitution?

The bottom line here is that the Democrats will unite around opposition to Trump in 2026, but they will have to choose among three options for a better future in 2028. They can: limit themselves to a promise to roll back Trumpism; take advantage of the new Trump version of the Constitution by ignoring legal constraints to promote growth and equality; or restore and respect the McConnell system, but work within it to make government more effective. That’s Klein’s agenda, and it has a lot going for it.

As I noted in a previous post, Ben Shapiro thinks Barack Obama was an extremely divisive president, in spite of his rhetoric about healing and unity. Why? Because the election of Obama in 2008 proved that America had overcome whatever racism it had in its past. He should have just shut up about the issue. He didn’t; white America reacted angrily to the suggestion that systemic racism was still a thing and that some of them were bigots; Trump was elected in 2016; and the rest is history. Is Shapiro right?

He’s living in fantasyland. The vehemence of the support for Sarah Palin in 2008 and the birther controversy are powerful evidence that racism was firmly embedded in the reactionary right long before Obama said anything about white cops and vigilantes shooting black people. Trump’s use of the military in blue cities, undertaken in the face of urban crime rates that have fallen dramatically, is evidence that it still exists; it is an article of faith among reactionaries that we need to keep an occupying force in our cities to keep black violence from spilling out into real (i.e., white) America.

While the 1970s weren’t a great time for America in general, the movies were outstanding. To this day, two of my favorites are “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and “The Sting.” Redford will always have a place in my heart just for them.

Trump is now sending the National Guard to Memphis. There is no denying that Memphis has a serious crime problem, and the governor of Tennessee did not object, so this particular intrusion into local governance doesn’t raise constitutional issues. But it does raise a practical question: if the National Guard is really needed to patrol the streets of the city, why didn’t the governor send troops there on his own authority years ago?

The obvious answer is that this is theater intended to give the impression that Donald Trump is Batman, not a serious effort to reduce crime.

In 2012, the GOP nominated Mitt Romney; four years later, it nominated Donald Trump. In an interesting conversation with Ezra Klein in today’s NYT, Ben Shapiro says the dramatic change in tone was due to Obama’s divisive behavior during and after the 2012 election. Is he right?

The argument has some surface plausibility, but I don’t agree with it, for three reasons. First, Obama’s 2012 campaign, which focused on Romney’s support for billionaires against workers, was consistent with Democratic campaigns practically since the beginning of time. Second, Obama did very little that was unusually divisive by anyone’s standards during his second term; most of the actions and events that would have riled the right occurred before the 2012 election. Finally, Romney won in 2012 because he outflanked his opponents to the right on the hot button immigration issue and because his principal opponents were both reactionaries: the social conservative Rick Santorum (think Ted Cruz in 2016 here) and the more secular Trump prequel Newt Gingrich. Trump, on the other hand, ran in an open lane against a group of PBPs and CDs in 2016. His victory was due more to the failure of his opponents to unite against him than to a fundamental change in the GOP electorate.

I have recently read a number of stories about soybean farmers who are hurting bigly as a result of Trump’s mass deportations and Chinese tariff retaliation. What conclusions should we draw from that?

First, that the farmers should have known this was coming, but they voted for Trump anyway, so they aren’t entitled to much sympathy. Second, that Trump will make sure they are receiving bailout payments from the proceeds of his tariffs in the near future. Don’t despair, great American farmers; giant welfare checks backed by our tariff payments and signed by your beloved president will be on the way shortly.

Libertarian tech executives would seem to be unlikely allies of a reactionary, immigrant-hating president. And yet, Big Tech seems to be thriving in the environment created by Trump. Why?

For two reasons. First, Trump has decided on national security grounds to deregulate AI to the maximum extent possible. That runs contrary to the interests of his MAGA followers, but is completely consistent with the interests of Big Tech. Second, as I anticipated, Trump is treating the tech companies as national champions in his trade negotiations. This could ultimately lead to a reduction in regulations and to higher profits overseas, although the EU, for one, is resisting.

Trump would probably approve of an economy similar to that of South Korea that is dominated by a handful of giant companies. That kind of economy would probably be less dynamic than one open to small entrepreneurs, but it would be easier for Trump to control.

The Democrats appear to be coalescing around an extension of Biden’s extra Obamacare tax credits as their ask for keeping the government open. This is not an issue of constitutional significance, but it is extremely popular, and it is already dividing the GOP. Refusing to extend the credits could cost the Republicans several vulnerable House seats. What will Trump do if he is confronted with this demand?

It will be an unpalatable choice. Going along with it is inconsistent with his desire to obliterate Obamacare; it will also offend the CLs in the House. Not going along with it could result in a House controlled by Democrats. Which is the lesser evil?

Trump has a pragmatic streak when it comes to winning elections. My guess is that he will acquiesce, albeit with some kicking and screaming.

I was driving back from my mother’s condo on the day she died when a song that I hadn’t heard for many years started playing in my head. I ignored it at first, but it became louder and louder, and I finally realized what it meant. The song was David Bowie’s “Modern Love,” and the only plausible explanation for it under the circumstances was that it was a message to me from my mother. What else could it be?

We had discussed my plan to go to Paris for Christmas–she was a strong supporter–before she died. Months later, I started getting cold feet about it. One day when I was working on a less expensive alternative, I heard another song I hadn’t heard in many years in my head–“Safe European Home” by The Clash. She was telling me to go to Paris; what else could it mean? We did, and I was grateful.

About a week after my dog Cromwell died, I was driving in my car when I could smell him in my back seat. It lasted for about a minute, then disappeared. It was him; there was no other explanation for the experience.

These are just a few of the connections I have made with deceased members of my family. Sometimes they come through music; sometimes they are manifested through intense, lucid dreams; mostly they are just a strong vibration I feel when I see or hear something. Do they make me unique in some way? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

My advice to my readers is to view experiences such as these with skepticism, but not to dismiss them out of hand. If something happens to you that cannot be explained by reference to the visible world, the source of it has to be elsewhere.