Cromwell

Years ago, I had a beautiful Australian Shepherd named–you guessed it–Cromwell. Cromwell was an alpha male. One day, my wife and I were talking to a neighbor who owned a smaller dog named Dallas. Dallas got excited and peed on my wife’s foot. Cromwell responded by standing over Dallas and peeing on him. The message was unmistakable.

That is the spirit that inspired the DOGE personnel cuts. They aren’t about making government more efficient; in the short run, they will certainly reduce levels of service, and there are no guarantees about what happens in the long run. They aren’t about saving money; the savings are miniscule. No, the point of the cuts is to prove to federal employees that Donald Trump owns their souls, so they had better not try to obstruct them the way they did in his last term. He’s the alpha; they’re nobody.

That’s the message to Canada, Mexico, and the EU, too.

With the exception of a handful of issues–hatred of trans people and tax cuts for the wealthy come to mind–the GOP now has no fixed views on anything; it is simply a vehicle to provide unqualified support for whatever Trump wants at any given time. That works as long as Trump is in power and is popular. But what happens if and when he becomes unpopular? What happens when he’s gone?

No possible Trump successor can do the weave the way he does. The party will have to make some serious decisions about what it believes and actually stick to them. That process will be entertaining, to say the least.

The markets are having a difficult time figuring out where Trump is going on tariffs. Are they leverage or an effort to create a new economy? Are they intended to be temporary or permanent? The public doesn’t know.

In reality, the story is different with each tariff. Here is a guide for you:

1. As with the DOGE staff cuts, the tariffs on Canada are nothing more than a display of personal dominance. They make no sense either as an economic measure or as leverage in a war against drug gangs.
2. The tariffs on Mexico are also motivated by the desire to show he’s the boss, but closing a back door for Chinese imports and fighting drug gangs also figure here.
3. The steel and aluminum tariffs are intended to be permanent. Trump wants to revive domestic manufacturing in those fields.
4. The Chinese tariffs are leverage for a deal that will result in managed trade. The terms of the future deal may also extend to geopolitical issues.
5. The coming reciprocal tariffs are supposed to be the springboard for the Godly Society. They may change somewhat over time, but expect them to remain in place for the entirety of Trump’s term.

On the one hand, you see the advent of the knowledge-based economy, which devalues the physical skills of men and gives unprecedented opportunities to women. On the other hand, the culture has not evolved to permit men to become subordinate spouses. Under these conditions, of course you are going to have fewer babies. Why would women agree to be the primary wage-earner and do the bulk of the household chores and the nurturing?

The right has opted for three different solutions to this problem. On occasion, it has swallowed its principles and authorized more public spending to support families. The peculiar MAGA cocktail of tariffs and deportations is intended to lead to the Godly Society, which will bring back supposedly manly manufacturing jobs and permit women to stay home and have babies. Finally, there is the coercion option. By all accounts, we are starting to see that in China; expect that to intensify in the years to come.

You will note that what is missing here is the obvious solution–to encourage men to do more work around the house. That is because the right’s identity is soaked in testosterone and traditional gender roles. The right cannot advocate for an approach that might actually work without destroying its own self-image.

As with so many things, Trump has done a 180 on crypto. Once a skeptic, he now wants to minimize regulations and make America the crypto powerhouse of the world. What this means, of course, is that he will be blamed the next time there is some sort of a huge scandal and investor confidence collapses whether it has anything to do with him or not.

If you don’t believe me, ask Javier Milei.

God, in his infinite wisdom, has decreed that Elon Musk’s soul should be run through a woodchipper as punishment for his sins. Elon is indignant.

ELON: It’s not fair! I was your faithful servant!

GOD: Give me five reasons in writing why your soul shouldn’t be destroyed. Just kidding. Why do you call yourself my servant?

ELON: I supported your agent, Donald Trump.

GOD: Why in the world do you call Trump my agent? He’s a despicable man.

ELON: You saved him from the assassin. It was your will that he become president again.

GOD: How do you know that?

ELON: Trump says so. Besides, it’s just common sense.

GOD: I work in mysterious ways, Elon. Never forget that. You don’t know what my plan is for Trump and America.

ELON: He’s doing your bidding. All of the Christians in America love him.

GOD: He hates most of America. He enjoys inflicting pain on people. He just wants to show people he’s the boss. Do you consider those to be Christian virtues?

ELON: They must be, because you approved it.

GOD: You enjoy inflicting pain on people, too. I’ve seen the picture of you with the chainsaw.

ELON: They’re in the way. You can’t make progress without hurting a few people. That’s just the way it is. Creative destruction is a good thing. It’s your will.

GOD: I know you like to break things. Those things, and those people, are mine, too. They matter to me as much as you do.

ELON: That doesn’t make sense. The future of mankind depends on geniuses like me. Everyone else is just along for the ride.

GOD: There it is–the sin of pride.

ELON: I have a lot to be proud of. Thanks to me, mankind will go to Mars one day.

GOD: What’s wrong with Earth? And why did you help ruin it?

ELON: I didn’t. I built Teslas to save the planet. That should count in my favor.

GOD: You built Teslas to make money. Then you supported a man who did his best to stop the transition to electric cars and promote the use of fossil fuels. Your record on the environment is mixed at best. Your business acumen is questionable, too. Why would you deliberately offend the half of America that would actually consider buying an electric car?

ELON: I was the richest man on the planet. What do you know about making money?

GOD: I heard that you want to create a master race on Mars that will be run by your progeny. Is that true?

ELON: Absolutely! Even if you destroy my soul, my genes will live on! I will be the ruler of Mars through my children and grandchildren!

GOD: So now you want to be me. I’ve heard enough. Crank up the woodchipper! (Elon screams in terror as the machine revs up)

Christopher Rufo will admit that systemic racism existed in the United States for centuries. He will also concede that it is reasonable to assume that some of the effects of that condition still linger to this day. He is adamant, however, that civil rights legislation must be applied in a completely colorblind way, and he notes that some of his allies even want to repeal the Civil Rights Act. Why?

As far as I can tell, there are only three possible arguments supporting the Rufo position. The first one, to deny that slavery and segregation had any lingering negative impacts on black people, is ludicrous; Rufo clearly doesn’t embrace it. The second one is that applying civil rights legislation specifically to assist black people, while historically understandable, was unacceptable even in the 1960s because it infringed on the liberties of innocent white people. The third is that, while affirmative action might have been appropriate as a temporary measure in the 1960s and 1970s, its day has passed. That appears to be the primary rationale used by the Supreme Court, albeit without much legal justification.

Does Rufo support #2 or #3? I couldn’t really tell from the Douthat interview.

In a fairly pathetic effort to convince us that he is applying pressure to Putin as well as Ukraine, Trump said today that: (1) he is ready to impose tariffs and sanctions on Russia, if necessary; and (2) he has threatened Putin with something in private that he can’t discuss.

Are you impressed? Well, just consider that: (1) Russia doesn’t sell us anything; (2) the only meaningful sanctions would result in an increase in gas prices, so Trump won’t do it; and (3) anything he says about private discussions with Putin are probably as truthful and meaningful as his secret plan to destroy IS.

Ross Douthat correctly notes that there aren’t enough right-wing academics in America to turn our universities away from liberalism–in other words, as I’ve noted before, you can “reform” New College, but not UF–so he wonders how Christopher Rufo plans to impose his will on them. Rufo responds, more or less, by saying that the federal government can and should use its immense financial leverage to wreck elite universities as they currently exist. It will then be up to them to find some sort of satisfactory solution to the ideology problem.

This is the Musk approach–move fast, break things, and hope the system can figure out a way to adapt. And if it can’t? The country loses one of its greatest assets and gets nothing in return.

Scott Bessent, who has previously argued that the Trump tariffs would be transitory, is now saying that the American Dream doesn’t include cheap consumer goods. In other words, at least some of the tariffs are a stab at import substitution, and are here to stay.

Cheap consumer goods may not be the essence of the American dream, but falling living standards for workers, plans to create labor shortages in essential industries through deportations, and big tax cuts for the wealthy certainly aren’t, either.

Trump can make business leaders run to him and beg for mercy. He can, on occasion, force heads of state of other countries to acknowledge they are his vassals. What he can’t do, however, is force American investors and consumers to spend money when they lack confidence in him and his chaotic approach to tariffs.

Not even Xi has that kind of power, as evidenced by the current state of the Chinese economy.

Congressional Democrats received the Trump speech mostly by engaging in a form of theater that was juvenile and ineffective. The Slotkin response speech, on the other hand, was centrist and sensible. What is going on with this mixed message?

Two observations are pertinent here. First, the base and moderates want to hear different things; it is hardly unusual for the party to feed both of them. In the end, it is the latter group that matters. Second, it is difficult to make a compelling political case against Trump as long as the only apparent victims of his power grab are public officials and employees. When America starts to feel the pain–the pain that was apparently predicted by Slotkin–that will change; the message will become clearer and more persuasive to the voting public.

Kevin McCarthy managed to keep his job for a while by making inconsistent promises to his members about spending. Mike Johnson appears to be using the same tactic on Medicaid; he is telling his hard liners that the cuts will be deep and real, while reassuring moderates in swing districts that the cuts will actually be minimal and cosmetic. No genuinely needy constituents will lose their insurance; the House is only targeting waste and fraud.

McCarthy ultimately lost his position when he no longer had credibility with a majority of his members. My guess is that it won’t end well for Johnson, either.

While I didn’t watch it–and I’m glad I didn’t–it is clear from published reactions that Trump’s speech was a combination of a campaign speech and a victory lap. That’s about what I would have expected.

For once, it appears that he talked about his tariffs. He said nothing which suggested, as his supporters insist, that they are very temporary expedients used to open the markets of our trading partners. Nor did he make much of an effort to prepare Americans for higher prices. He will pay for that before too long.

In the end, the right and the left will judge him on his words, but the center will judge him on his deeds. America as a whole isn’t much moved by the plight of fired federal workers, but it will care if prices go up, the economy slumps, and NATO disappears. All of those things are on the way.

Trump optimists are continuing to argue that the purpose of the undiplomatic offensive is to force the Europeans to take responsibility for protecting themselves, thereby permitting us to focus on China. Pessimists (including me) believe he plans to ally himself with Putin against the Europeans and Ukraine for the purpose of destroying the EU and NATO. How will we know who is right here?

Watch and see how Trump reacts to proposals from Europe to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty as part of a peace deal. If he embraces them, the optimists are probably right; if he does his best to put up barriers to the use of European NATO assets, the pessimists will have won the day.