Cromwell

Trump comes down to the Oval Office, where Elon is packing up his stuff.

M: How’s the most powerful man in the world?

T: Great! The Houthis just bent the knee to me, like everyone else! How’s the richest man in the world?

M: Things have been better. The value of my car company has plummeted. I have to get back to my day job.

T: Well, I’m doing the best I can for you. I bought a Tesla, and I’m sending billions in contracts to SpaceX. And anyone who vandalizes a Tesla is being prosecuted for a hate crime.

M: Much appreciated.

T: I’m sorry to see you go. We sure raised a lot of hell together, didn’t we?

M: Absolutely! The deep state will never be the same. Now it knows you’re the boss. It won’t get in the way again.

T: That’s right. People thought it was about saving money, but it was really about dominance. Now those bureaucrats know I’m the man. They won’t forget it soon. You helped make sure of that.

M: That said, this country does have a problem with debt, and we only scratched the surface. You need to go after the big bucks.

T: Like what? Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

M: The defense budget, too. Those four are where the money is.

T: I can’t do that. My voters rely on entitlement programs, and there are too many hawks in Congress to ignore.

M: Then the debt will continue to be a problem no matter what OMB tries. And I’m concerned about the tariffs. Are you trying to turn America into Peron’s Argentina, or are you using the tariffs as leverage to create more free trade? I can’t tell.

T: That’s my way, Elon. I like to keep people guessing. Keeping my options open helps keep our players on side. It also makes me the center of attention, which is very important.

M: But investors need to know what’s going on, even if the voters don’t. You can’t make America great without investment.

T: They’ll figure it out eventually. So will you. (Elon leaves)

Trump’s frenetic activity has invited comparisons with FDR’s 100 days. How do the two stack up?

FDR took office during the depths of the Great Depression. The American economy was on its knees, and there was no meaningful federal safety net. Using his massive majority in Congress, he pushed through legislation that addressed some of the worst impacts of the downturn. He also worked hard to regain the waning confidence of the American people. His first 100 days were a success.

Trump took office at a time when unemployment was at four percent and inflation was easing. Instead of pursuing legislation, he signed a blizzard of executive orders that were designed to wreck American institutions, violate the Constitution, and amass power to an unprecedented degree. His changing rationales for tariffs damaged consumer and investor confidence and threatened to send the economy into a slump. Does that sound like a success to you?

Scott Bessent argues that tariffs, when combined with tax cuts and deregulation, will make investment in America great again. Is he right?

Take the example of the president of a German car manufacturer. His company already makes some cars in the US for the American market, but that clearly isn’t enough for Trump. It sounds like Bessent wants him to move all of his operations to the US and export to the EU. Is that plausible? Would the EU really permit that to happen? How would he find a large enough pool of underemployed skilled workers in the US to operate the plants? What would happen to his extensive supply chain in Germany? How can he rely on Trump’s tariffs remaining stable when the rules can change at any time and for any reason?

In short, the answer is no. To make matters worse, Bessent seems to be assuming that America’s trade partners will sign agreements to let their manufacturing base be hollowed out. That isn’t going to happen, either; if the mass migration of industry to the US is going to occur, it will be the result of the shock-and-awe reciprocal tariff scheme, not the deals we have been promised in the interest of American export businesses and consumers.

Donald Trump started his second term as an elderly lame duck. Now his poll ratings are a potential threat to every GOP member of Congress. Does that mean we can expect more independence from them?

Not immediately, because most of them live in safe districts in which the greatest threat would be from a MAGA primary challenger, not a Democrat. If MAGA starts to splinter, however–and that could happen during a battle for the succession between the midterms and the 2028 election–the story could change.

On the one hand, the Medicaid cuts contemplated by the House will cost millions of Americans–many of them MAGA voters–their health insurance, and several GOP House members in swing districts their seats. On the other hand, pulling back from the cuts will force the GOP to either reduce the size of their tax cut or find another reliable source of revenue. That won’t be acceptable to the CLs in the House.

How will the circle be squared? By pushing responsibility on to state governments and pretending the cuts only address waste and fraud. That is unlikely to work, because the millions of people who lose their insurance will not identify themselves as either waste or fraud.

Imagine that Trump manages to bring trade with China to a complete halt. American companies dependent on revenues from exports to China would be ruined. At home, shelves would be empty, and prices would skyrocket. It would be a disaster.

But the trade deficit would be reduced to zero. According to Trump, that would make us rich again. Does that make sense to you?

David French argues that the religious right has become absorbed into the MAGA movement as a whole; it no longer has any independent existence. Is he right?

I agree with French on most things, but not this. The religious right gives unconditional support to the pagan Trump because it is convinced that only he can save it from cultural annihilation. It consequently is willing to tolerate whatever tactical retreats Trump deems necessary to protect his position at the national level. It will continue to pursue its particular interests in litigation and at the state level, however, and when Trump is out of the picture and MAGA splits, it will go its own way.

A large segment of the GOP is highly invested in the independence of Taiwan. Trump is not of their number; he sees Taiwan as just another freeloader, and he probably (and with some reason) doubts it can be successfully defended. What does that mean for Taiwan’s future?

I suspect that Trump sees Taiwan as his primary negotiating chip with Xi. He will promise not to defend it in exchange for a managed trade agreement and a free hand in the Western Hemisphere. It is a deal that Xi just might take, since it would effectively turn all of Asia into a Chinese sphere of influence.

The hawkish members of the GOP will be outraged, but they will keep quiet in public. No matter what indignity Trump inflicts on them, they will swallow it to maintain party unity and keep the left at bay.

To no one’s surprise, Mike Waltz has the distinction of being the first prominent Trump appointee to be removed from his job. In this case, however, Trump has given him a different job, perhaps in a futile effort to convince us that he doesn’t hire complete incompetents.

Hey, at least Waltz lasted longer than Michael Flynn. That’s something.

If history is any guide–and it usually is–Trump will appoint an establishment type to play a good cop, and the world will breathe a sigh of relief. That will be a mistake, because the good cops answer to the bad cop.

The crisis is coming. How will you know it’s here? When Trump unleashes the might of the military and federal law enforcement against American citizens whose only crime is to oppose him.

What will cause the crisis? It won’t happen until Trump feels threatened by the opposition. When will it occur? When the threat becomes intolerable to him, and when he is certain of the unconditional loyalty of the military and law enforcement. That could be as late as the 2028 election. But it could be earlier–around the midterms or in response to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision, a mass demonstration, effective blue state resistance, a self-created financial crisis, or a dangerous international event.

How will America react? TBD. One thing is for certain, however; history shows that a ruthless and single-minded minority with guns can get what it wants even against the will of a large majority.

We are already starting to hear it from some corners of the new administration–a recession would be good for the nation’s soul. We have become too concerned about material things, and not enough about God and the overall welfare of the community. A little suffering will refocus us, and for the better. Fewer toys for Christmas, and more Jesus.

The problem, of course, is that the administration is run by the richest man in the world and a former casino owner who likes nothing more than bragging about how wealthy he is. Is anybody going to accept the message about materialism from them?

Donald Trump is a pure pagan; his ethics revolve around power and money, and there is no room in his mental universe for any god but himself. So is Elon Musk; in fact, “Empathy is the enemy” may well be the least Christian statement ever made. In spite of this, American Christians have embraced these two men and their agendas. Why?

Because they have permitted themselves to believe that they face extermination at the hands of people who believe in Christian ethics, but not metaphysics–liberals, in other words. Only pagans, in their eyes, are strong and ruthless enough to save them, and power, not persuasion, is the way to get it done.

This will not end well for the Christians. Deliberately associating your movement with chaos and cruelty is not a good way to win hearts and minds.

On the once-again President Trump.

Falling polls turned him into a grump.

He tells us to trust

But he sounds like Liz Truss

And we’re heading straight into a slump.

Robert Moses has been a boogeyman for the left for decades due to his indifference to important American values. There are plenty of parks and useful roads in New York that wouldn’t exist without his energetic support, however. How can we change our regulatory system to keep the good side of Moses and expel the bad side?

Here are three ideas. First, give federal, state, and local governments the right to bypass the regular process on projects that are genuinely of overriding public importance. Second, put statutory deadlines in permitting process and enforce them. Third, find a way to compensate the people who wind up losing their rights in the expedited process in the name of the public interest. I have posted on ways to do this in zoning on previous occasions; the state and federal governments could surely find a way to cut taxes on regulatory victims in other cases.

Ezra Klein thinks it is too difficult to build things in America, and that the left’s enthusiasm for slow, methodical process is a big part of the reason. Is he right, and if so, what can be done about it?

He is correct, but the processes were created for a reason, as Trump reminds us every day. First, having set, transparent, enforceable procedural rules reduces the potential for corruption. Second, rules make arbitrary decisions with highly negative long-term results less likely. Third, they provide some degree of assurance that historically powerless people will have their voices heard. It is far less likely that interstate highways will be bulldozed through vibrant neighborhoods of poor people today than it was 50 years ago.

If we had no alternatives between the kind of autocracy supported by Trump and Musk or a regulatory swamp, I would choose the latter. There is, however, plenty of middle ground here. I will discuss ways of improving the system in my next post.