Cromwell

He was a reactionary who blew up the world order and spent the rest of his life trying to protect his accomplishments. Against the odds, he was a supporter of a government safety net. He launched a culture war against his domestic enemies. He played hardball with a frequently uncooperative legislature for which he usually expressed contempt. In the end, when he lost power, the world wondered how it would get along without him.

That’s Bismarck. It’s also Trump, with the exception of the part about being a force for stability after he succeeded.

House Republicans have shown over the last few years that they are incapable of doing anything smoothly and gracefully. For the most part, they don’t do anything at all except suck up to Trump and own the libs. In the end, however, they accomplish the bare minimum necessary to keep the lights on, and no more.

Yesterday’s committee vote on the reconciliation bill was, of course, an embarrassment to the GOP, but the result won’t be permanent. After lots of kicking and screaming, the caucus will ultimately get something done. The Senate will then trash their work, and there will be at least two more levels of drama. When it is all said and done, however, the fear of failure will be powerful enough for some sort of “big, beautiful” bill to get through this summer.

The experience will be more proof to Trump that liberal democracy is a loser, and that he is better off doing everything himself.

GOP House members can be divided into three groups: idealistic CLs from bright red districts who want to cut the size of the welfare state dramatically and who will pay no price for doing so; PBPs from swing districts who know that big cuts will cost them their seats and the GOP its majority; and a large, fairly inert majority, which wants only to make Trump happy and get something–anything– done. Mike Johnson needs all three groups to get the “big, beautiful” bill to the Senate. Which side will cave?

Over the past two plus years, the Democrats have been willing to work with Johnson and the last two groups to keep the lights on. As a result, the CLs have been able to vote their ideology without sinking the ship. That won’t happen in this case, so recent history will not be a guide.

In the end, I think both fringes will give something, but the moderates will give more. They will be compensated with jobs in the administration after they lose in 2026.

After the announcement regarding the tariff pause with China, Scott Bessent explained that a decoupling of the two economies was undesirable, and that America’s objective was simply to protect economic activity that was tied closely to national security.

Well, that’s not going to get us to the Godly Society. And you thought Joe Biden was out of the White House!

Trump announced today that he was imposing tough new tariffs on the Vatican. When asked why, he explained that he had to do something about the Vatican’s huge trade surplus. The tariff would make America rich again.

Pope Leo protested, noting that the Vatican had no manufacturing, and that the trade surplus came purely from religious tourism. Trump responded by demanding that the Vatican buy American fighter jets for two purposes: to eliminate the deficit; and to prepare for an international crusade to be led by American believers against seculars, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists.

David French argues that the new Pope and the Catholic Church do not belong to any American political party. Is he right?

Historically, no; Christian Democrats were the predominant faction within the GOP for most of my lifetime. Trump has changed all of that, however; MAGA is the antithesis of “compassionate conservatism,” which is the best succinct description of CD ideology you can find. As a result, the CDs have either turned into Reactionaries (e.g., Rubio and Vance) or Democrats.

And so, for now, French is right. Could that change in the future? Only after Trump leaves the scene and the Reactionaries lose their grip on the GOP.

A note to my readers: I will be on vacation until Friday. Regular posting will resume on Saturday.

Stephen Miran was asked by an NYT interviewer about Trump’s plans to provide more housing. He responded by citing the administration’s commitment to deregulation. He was then asked whether Trump had any intention of incentivizing deregulation at the state and local level. His answer, in a nutshell, was no; the federal government would provide an example, but that was all.

There you have it. The Trump “plan,” in reality, is to deport millions of immigrants, millions of whom work in the construction industry, while imposing tariffs on building materials and driving up interest rates. That should certainly do the trick.

Trump has apparently united Iranian public opinion behind the regime by announcing that the Persian Gulf would be renamed the “Arabian Gulf.” This, of course, comes after elections in Canada and Australia in which public loathing of him played a decisive role in favor of the left.

Trump, Bannon, and Musk believe in an international coalition of nationalists. They are creating one, but not the one they had in mind.

During the Biden years, America acted as a party–an ally of Ukraine–in the war. After his inauguration, Trump made it clear that America no longer had any interest in the outcome of the war and simply wanted to end it. That shifted his position from a party to that of a mediator.

To the surprise of nobody but Trump and Vance, America’s efforts at mediation have failed. Trump is now talking about enforcing new economic sanctions on Russia in order to impose the settlement of his choosing. In other words, he is threatening to become an arbitrator.

It won’t work; there are no new sanctions available to us that will force Putin to stop fighting. The only way we can facilitate a fair settlement is by rearming Ukraine, thereby persuading Putin that his ultimate objectives are unattainable–in other words, by becoming a party again.

The Israelis are planning a massive new incursion into Gaza. They intend to herd the civilians into a small space in the southern part of the strip, take control of aid distribution, and annihilate everyone and everything else outside the protected area. It sounds a lot like the plan I proposed about a year ago, except that my suggestion regarding the generous treatment of civilians doesn’t appear to be one of its features.

What does this mean? It is certainly motivated in part by Bibi’s continuing desire to keep the extreme right happy and himself in power. It may well foreshadow an indefinite occupation and an effort to annex large chunks of Gaza. What it undoubtedly means is that Bibi has lost hope that Trump will attack Iran in the near future. There is no way he would put this much effort into Gaza with an Iran war on the horizon.

Here are my thoughts:

1. It is more detailed than a mere framework for further negotiations, but it isn’t a true trade agreement, as lots of work remains;
2. It is low hanging fruit, from Trump’s perspective, given that we don’t have a trade deficit with the UK;
3. It represents the limits of the possible with a liberal democratic state. It doesn’t guarantee that trade will be balanced in the future; it doesn’t in any way require the British public to buy any of our goods; it leaves controversial British health and safety requirements in place; and it focuses on a limited number of kinds of goods. As such, it suggests that the American ideologues who see tariffs and managed trade agreements as the gateway to the Godly Society are going to be sadly disappointed; farmers will profit, but nothing about the deal suggests that an American manufacturing renaissance is imminent.
4. The mere fact that it exists is better than nothing.

Everything I have read about Leo suggests that the profile of him in my previous post was correct. I’m ambivalent about his name; on the one hand, it sounds too much like Louis XIV, and the only Leo I knew before this morning was the uninspiring Medici Pope Leo X; on the other hand, it appears that Leo XIII was the kind of centrist, transitional, pastoral leader that I expect the new pope to be.

Not even the cardinals know who amongst them will be the next pope, so I will not hazard a guess. I will, however, predict that he will be a centrist with something to offer to everyone: to the right, more tolerance of the Latin Mass and an end to Francis’ trial balloons; and to the progressives, a promise to build bridges and vocally oppose the use of cruelty as a weapon against the poor and oppressed, most notably immigrants.

In other words, don’t expect Trump or Vance to be wearing a cardinal’s hat anytime soon.

It’s easy to forget now, but Joe Biden took office with the intention of being FDR for the 21st century. His efforts to overthrow the dollar store economy and the McConnell Project were defeated by inflation, the lack of votes in the Senate, and an increasingly conservative judiciary. As a result, neither he nor Harris could run convincingly as a change candidate, and his record, rightly or not, did not impress the American people. The Trump victory was the inevitable result.

Trump is trying to destroy the McConnell Project from a completely different angle. That leaves the Democrats with a difficult choice in the event we have fair elections in 2028. Should they attempt to assemble the widest possible coalition–including business interests who hate the tariffs–in order to bring back the status quo ante, including McConnell’s limitations on legislation and the use of executive power? Or should they use the opening created by Trump to reach for more fundamental change? This would mean completely eliminating the filibuster and ignoring unfavorable rulings from the Supreme Court.

We have a long way to go between now and then, but that will be the fundamental issue during the primaries.

Bessent and Greer are scheduled to meet with Chinese officials in a few days to discuss trade issues. What can we expect?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Since Trump and Xi will not attend, geopolitical issues will be off the table. In the end, they probably won’t be.
2. China is a truly mercantilist country. It is possible to make a managed trade agreement with it.
3. There is no possibility that the Chinese will agree to abandon its economic model just to maintain its level of exports to the US.
4. It is, however, possible to reach an agreement in which the Chinese buy more American gas and agricultural products. This agreement would look a lot like the one that Trump negotiated during his first term.
5. The Chinese did not meet their obligations under the first agreement.
6. Even if they did, increased profits for farmers and gas companies would hardly represent an American industrial renaissance or bring about the Godly Society. It would not be worth the chaos and the pain of the trade war to the average American.