Cromwell

Trump’s campaign commercials didn’t say anything about tariffs; they just told us that we could trust him on the economy. When he was asked about tariffs, he insisted that foreigners would pay them. In office, he has imposed tariffs more or less at random, and without any obvious justification. As a result, the American people are completely unprepared both for the direct impacts of the tariffs and for the inevitable retaliation that is already following.

Reality is going to bite. Even the base is going to complain about higher prices and lost sales. Then what? TBD.

The markets don’t know what to make of Trump’s tariffs. Are they temporary or permanent? Are they leverage to get a better deal or a device to create an economy based on import substitution? Will they result in inflation or a recession?

Given Trump’s capriciousness and desire to show he’s the boss, there are no single simple answers to most of these questions. As to the last, however, you don’t have to choose. The tariffs will result in price increases, lower consumer confidence, and a reduction in confidence. In short, if they remain in place, we will be looking at stagflation.

Given his personality, we can dismiss out of hand any notion that Trump’s desperate desire for a quick end to the Ukraine war is driven primarily by humanitarian concerns. So what exactly is motivating him?

The only plausible explanation, in my opinion, is that Trump sees the war as an unnecessary obstacle to better relations with Putin. That then leads to another question–why is Trump so determined to ally himself with Putin? Is it because he admires the man and his system? Is it because he plans to destroy the EU and NATO, and needs Putin’s assistance? Is it because he thinks the ultimate objective is to flip Putin away from his alliance with China?

In all likelihood, the answer to all of these questions is yes.

There is an obvious discrepancy in size and power between Russia and Ukraine. Joe Biden sought to eliminate, or at least reduce, the discrepancy by providing Ukraine with arms and money in an effort to maintain Ukraine’s independence. Trump, on the other hand, clearly has no desire to remain Ukraine’s ally, but he wants an end to the war. How can he get it?

He has three options. First, he can offer his services as a mediator–an honest broker with no preference between the two sides. Second, he can attempt to impose a reasonably fair settlement of his choice on the parties. Third, he can openly switch sides, support Russia, and force Ukraine and its European allies to surrender in exchange for whatever crumbs of autonomy Putin will accept.

The second option won’t work because the only way Trump can impose his will on Putin is to threaten escalation; it is obvious he has no intention of doing that. As a result, any intervention on his part will be completely one-sided. Both the first and the third alternative could well mean the end of NATO, since the Europeans won’t agree to abandon Ukraine. I think that is where we are headed.

Ross Douthat continues to insist that Trump is just, in his rough and offensive way, giving tough love to our European allies. He does, however, believe that the message should be moderated to include less tough and more love; otherwise, the Europeans might actually take offense, to America’s detriment. Is he right?

That opinion is so 2018! Trump’s undiplomatic offensive is not an effort to identify unpleasant truths and deliver tough love; at best, he is trying to demonstrate to the Euros that they are mere vassals instead of allies, and at worst, he’s planning to feed some of them to Putin.

Here, as with most things Trumpian, the harshness and the cruelty aren’t an inadvertent shortcoming; they’re the point.

Life in the time of Trump.

Zelensky came to town.

He had a deal

But it wasn’t real

And Trump just dressed him down.

What will happen to Ukraine?

The Europeans wonder.

If you want to keep some friends

It’s just another blunder.

Trump divides individuals and nations into three groups: vassals, who do his bidding and accept his view of reality, at least in public, without question; strong adversaries, with whom you make deals; and weak adversaries, who get fed to the woodchipper. Zelensky failed the vassal test, so into the woodchipper he goes!

If it makes him feel any better, he was probably destined for the woodchipper in any event, because Putin, a strong adversary, will insist.

The European imperialists of the fifteen and sixteenth centuries at least had the excuse that they were saving the souls of the indigenous people. In the nineteenth century, it was all about the “white man’s burden,” which was more about railways and other objective standards of civilization than religion. But what about now?

Trump doesn’t even pretend to have any interests beyond short-term material gain. In that sense, he’s worse than a conquistador.

Thomas Friedman says nothing like it has ever happened before–an American president openly siding with an aggressor dictatorship against a small democratic victim. Bret Stephens called it “a day of infamy.” They’re right. What does it mean in the long run?

Trump is going beyond his old notion of talking trash to get allies to pay their way. He’s identifying himself with the aspirations of dictators against the interests and values of liberal democratic states. Why? Either because he admires and wants to emulate authoritarian systems or because he wants a deal to divide the world with them. Or both.

I’m guessing it’s both. And then we will find out how many of America’s former allies will agree, even under pressure, to become vassal states, and how far Trump is willing to go to coerce the ones who don’t.

David Cameron and George Osborne were CLs. They cut spending everywhere they could, reduced regulations, and relied heavily on the private sector to police itself. As a result, it was easy to draw a direct line between the British government’s actions and the Grenfell Tower fire.

Something similar is going to happen in this country sooner or later. It may be an avoidable plane crash; it may be an epidemic; it may be a problem with the food supply; it may be something else entirely. But the public health and safety will be damaged by Trump and Musk’s chaotic attempts at cutting spending and deregulation, and they will be quite rightly blamed for it.

Musk, in a sense, won’t care; he is prepared to accept collateral damage, and he can’t be voted out of office. But Trump and the GOP will have to deal with the falling polls. My guess is they will do it by showing Musk the door.

On the one hand, there is no way the Democrats can simply acquiesce to Trump’s revolutionary efforts to impound appropriated funds. On the other hand, if they shut down the government, they will be cutting off needed government services to millions of people, immiserating the workforce, and taking the hit for it in the eyes of the public. There are no good choices here. What should they do?

Ultimately, the decision on impoundment has to be made by the Supreme Court. If an agreement can be reached with the GOP leadership on the numbers, the Democrats should make the deal without guarantees, since they will not be forthcoming, but with the very public statement that any evidence of impoundment will be met with litigation.

How would you turn the American military into a right-wing militia suitable for use against your political enemies in the blue states? The first thing you would do is nominate a complete loyalist with strong views about wokeness to be your Secretary of Defense. Next, you would replace the leaders of the military with reliable reactionaries. Third, you would fire the JAGs who might advise the new leaders not to follow illegal orders. Finally, you would identify and run off as many people in the ranks as possible who don’t share your agenda.

Hmmm.

Elon Musk is taking a cat nap on the floor of the Oval Office when Trump arrives.

T: Good morning! How’s the richest man in the world doing today?

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

T: Great! We’re an awesome team, aren’t we?

M: You bet! The woodchipper is just getting started.

T: We took care of foreign aid. All those liberals are crying a river. They don’t understand that money and power are all that matter in this world. When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

M: Right. The environmental agencies, too. They just get in the way. We need to free the free markets and let it rip.

T: Absolutely! Ukraine, too. Before long, we’ll own the part the Russians don’t control. Those poor losers won’t know what hit them.

M: National parks! Who needs natural wonders on this planet when we can go to Mars!

T: You got that right. Real Americans love steel and glass, not trees and waterfalls. We’ll have plenty of skyscrapers on Mars, I’m sure. An even bigger and better Trump Tower!

M: We kicked ass in the VA, too. So much waste and fraud!

T: That might not have been the greatest idea. Vets love me. We need to break things, but not everything.

M: We’ll try to fix that. What’s next?

T: Germany! I hate those people. They sell us cars, enjoy our protection, and give us nothing but lectures in return. Let’s get the woodchipper going as soon as possible!

M: I thought you were German.

T: No. I’m Swedish. Everyone knows that.

M: Then what?

T: California! The enemy within!

M: Can’t you just imagine Newsom being run through a woodchipper?

T: It doesn’t get any better than that! (He leaves to watch programming on Fox; Elon gets back to work)

Even though Trump is an economic illiterate, he seems to understand that the public has far more confidence in a Fed led by technocrats than in politicians. In other words, destroying the independence of the Fed would tank the markets, which would effectively be a no-confidence vote by investors. On the other hand, Trump clearly wants to take control of all of the independent agencies, including the Fed; the unitary executive theory practically demands it. Can he resist grabbing for the marshmallow even though it will cost him in the long run?

The question practically answers itself; Trump can never resist grabbing for the marshmallow. At some point, the Fed is going to refuse his order to cut interest rates, and then things are going to get really exciting.

THE PROPOSAL: No taxes on overtime pay.

RATIONALE: Encourages hard work.

REBUTTAL: As with tips, income is income. This proposal will encourage the manipulation of records for the purpose of tax evasion and will actually deter employers from hiring additional needed employees.

ANALYSIS: This is an exceptionally stupid idea with no obvious constituency.

PROGNOSIS: Forget about it. It won’t happen.