Cromwell

It’s a question that has perplexed historians for centuries: why did Madison, whose zeal for federalism in some respects initially exceeded Hamilton’s, change sides? I posted on this issue back in 2016, but with the advantage of nine years of additional reading, I’m going to try it again.

I think there are two reasons. First, Madison’s intense federal phase coincided with Jefferson’s tenure in Paris. Hamilton later accused Madison of being, I believe, “the handmaiden to a greater mistress;” there may have been some truth to this. But the more important reason was that Madison’s focus was less on strengthening the central authority and more on the protection of individual rights, the greatest threat to which in 1787 came from the states. When the new federal government started implementing an agenda that went well beyond checking state excesses, it was logical for Madison to flip against it.

The two titans have been reunited to talk about the state of American politics.

J: Hey Alex! What do you think about what Musk is doing to the government?

H: It’s even worse than I feared.

J: Why? I thought you would approve of Musk. He’s the richest man in the world. Didn’t you want American government to be run by really rich guys?

H: My position on that was more nuanced than you think. I believed that government needed to be responsive to the needs to business in order to build wealth for the entire community and power for the new nation. I also thought that America needed its own aristocracy of wealth and talent. Musk doesn’t represent business; he just speaks for himself and a few arrogant tech giants. He creates chaos and assumes he has the ability to fix it, which may or may not be true; in the meantime, business doesn’t know how to react, and the economy suffers. And as to his contribution to America, do you really think owning a social media company makes him a natural aristocrat?

J: I still call it Sewer, not X.

H: Anyway, you are more responsible for him than I am.

J: Whoa! Everyone knows I didn’t have any use for big business types. Musk would have been my worst nightmare. How can you say I’m responsible for him?

H: Look at what Musk stands for–moving fast and breaking things. He has no respect for what came before him and no concern for the people he hurts. He even makes a point of being offensive to America’s traditional friends. That makes him a 21st century Jacobin. And we both know who among us supported the Jacobins.

J: My position on that was more nuanced than you think. I supported the French Revolution in its early stages. I gave some help to Lafayette and his friends. But I didn’t support the Jacobins or Napoleon. They were thugs and terrorists. We had to deal with them, but they weren’t friends of mine by any means.

H: OK, so I guess we should call it a draw. What do you think happens next?

J: Musk keeps tearing things down until one of his decisions really negatively impacts the entire American public, at which time the polls become very negative and Trump dumps him.

H: How long do you think that will take?

J: A year at most.

H: We’ll be watching and hoping, I guess.

DOGE is now cutting everywhere. They cut desperately needed immigration judges and the VA. They even acknowledged making a mistake with some probationary nuclear safety employees, but they can’t find the poor souls to call them back. What is going on here?

Here are some possible rationales for the cuts, and my reactions:

1. TRUMP IS JUST GOING AFTER HIS ENEMIES: A few highly publicized firings meet that test, but the vast majority of them impact faceless probationary employees in a wide range of government departments.
2. TRUMP IS TRYING TO ELIMINATE WOKENESS: In some cases, yes, but the VA? And the Pentagon is supposedly on the list, too.
3. TRUMP FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT CUTTING THE COST OF GOVERNMENT: History tells us that isn’t true. In any event, cutting employees without changing the underlying statutes and regulations just makes government slower and more cumbersome. It effectively shifts the cost of the savings to consumers.
4. TRUMP JUST WANTS TO PROVE HE’S THE BOSS TO THE DEEP STATE, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES: That sounds about right.
5. MUSK BELIEVES THE SYSTEM WILL ADJUST AND IMPROVE QUICKLY WHEN IT IS CHALLENGED BY MASSIVE CUTS: He undoubtedly does believe that, but is he right? And what happens to the workings of government in the interim? TBD.

In short, the correct answer is a combination of #4 and #5.

If Trump is now the developer-in-chief, it seems that Vance has become the troll-in-chief. After attempting to prove that the Pope knows less about the Catholic Church’s position on the treatment of immigrants than he does, he flew into Munich and demanded in the name of democracy that the EU countries–the Germans in particular– stop excluding right-wing extremists from power. All of the German parties to the left of the AfD were, as you would expect, highly offended by this outrageous intrusion into their domestic politics. What is Vance trying to do here? How does America benefit when he insults our allies?

In the short run, there is no obvious answer to that question. In the longer run, one of Trump’s objectives is to split the EU; I suspect his ill-defined plan for reciprocal tariffs will treat some favored European countries (Hungary and Italy, to name two) better than others. The poor Germans, with their massive trade surplus, will be among Trump’s designated punching bags. Will the EU stand as one against the tariffs, or will Trump divide and conquer? Either way, I think insulting the Germans foreshadows the turmoil to come.

Somewhat to my surprise, Collins and Murkowski are voting to confirm all of Trump’s cabinet nominees except Hegseth. Murkowski won’t pay a price for that–she represents a red state, after all–but Collins will. As with Kavanaugh, she will be held responsible by the good people of Maine for all of the havoc that Kennedy, Gabbard, and Patel will wreak over the next few years.

But McConnell has remained firm. Why? Because he understands that an unrestrained Trump is the end of the McConnell Project. If Congress and the judiciary can’t keep a Republican president within the guardrails, how can you rely on them when the left is in power? What good is the filibuster if the Senate has ceded all of its power to the executive? What difference does a conservative judiciary make if the president has the practical ability to ignore it?

Having met with furious resistance from the Europeans and the Ukrainians, Trump and his allies are walking back their comments about the future settlement with Putin. Of course the Ukrainians and NATO members will have a seat at the table during the negotiations. And everything is on the table, including escalation, if Putin won’t moderate his demands. We wouldn’t just throw away all of our leverage up front, would we? That wouldn’t make sense!

And yet, it is exactly what they did. Putin will not be impressed.

We were frequently reminded over the last decade that Twitter, now X, isn’t America. Elon Musk doesn’t appear to believe that, however; he is using the same tactics to reduce the federal workforce that he used at his company. Will it work?

It depends on what you mean by “work.” America is a nation of citizens, not a closely held corporation. It is governed by laws and the Constitution, not the whims of an unelected entrepreneur. If you fire masses of federal workers more or less randomly, your actions don’t make the underlying statutes and regulations disappear; you just make it impossible to enforce them. Chaos ensues, and business, which demands certainty even above low taxes, slows to a crawl.

Is that really a sensible way to make America great again? Since X lost a large percentage of its value after Musk bought it, the answer would appear to be no.

On the one hand, Putin’s not a bad guy. You can make deals with him, and we should bring him back to the G7. On the other hand, the Europeans need to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP to strengthen NATO. Does the message of the last few days make sense?

Clearly not. If Putin isn’t the big bad wolf, why should I bother to reinforce my house?

If Trump really wants to turn NATO into the 21st century version of the Delian League, he needs to be talking up what a menace Putin is, not embracing him.

The Trump DOJ is conditionally dropping its investigation of Eric Adams. The condition has nothing to do with the merits of the case; the DOJ has made it clear that Adams will go unscathed as long as he cooperates with Trump on illegal immigration and keeps his mouth shut.

It sounds like something out of a gangster movie, except the DOJ is operating as the gangster. One hopes the good people of NYC will respond appropriately and vote Adams out of office as soon as possible.

To the surprise of precisely no one, it has become clear over the last two days that Trump has no intention of using his available leverage to get better terms from Putin; instead, he plans to impose a peace on Putin’s terms on Ukraine and its European allies. The essential terms of the agreement will be as follows:

1. Ukraine gives up its sovereignty over Crimea and the Donbas; the exact boundaries are TBD;
2. No NATO membership for Ukraine; and
3. No American security guarantees for Ukraine. Any security assistance will have to come from Europe. America will provide economic assistance, but only on an arm’s length basis.

The first two elements of this plan were inevitable based on the facts on the ground. The last is shameful. As I’ve said many times before, the presence or absence of an American security guarantee represented the difference between a Korean and a Munich peace. Trump is choosing Munich.

When threats of tariffs, sanctions, and military invasions don’t work, soft power may keep your allies in line. Unfortunately, Trump doesn’t believe in soft power. As a result, he is busy destroying whatever reservoir of goodwill we have left with his chaos and random bellicosity.

When we reach a crisis and call for allied support, who will be left to listen to us? Israel? Hungary? El Salvador?

Even the worst wolf warriors in China aren’t that stupid.

Trump, as we know, equates loyalty and white reactionary identity politics with competence. Isn’t it ironic that the incompetence of his appointees, particularly within the DOJ, may prevent the accomplishment of his objectives?

Braxton Bragg was a Confederate general. Unlike, say, Lee and Jackson, he was also a consistent loser. Those are two really good reasons not to name an American military base after him. As a result, Biden did the right thing and changed the name of Fort Bragg to Fort Liberty.

Trump, on the other hand, thinks reactionary politics and meritocracy are the same thing. His government has decided to change the name back to Fort Bragg. The fig leaf behind the change is that the Bragg in question is supposed to be someone different than the Confederate loser.

LOL. No one is going to be stupid enough to believe that.

I was listening to the CD of Newman’s greatest hits this morning. Songs like “Sail Away,” “Rednecks,” and “Political Science” used to sound hopelessly dated. Today, they sound like America in 2025.

I guess Newman was a prophet, not an historian.

The Chinese Empire was surrounded by vassal states, which acknowledged their military and cultural subordination in the form of tribute payments in exchange for protection and some degree of autonomy in domestic affairs. It is reasonable to assume that Xi and the CCP aspire to something similar in China’s back yard today.

It would appear that Trump does, too; his aggressive behavior towards Canada and Mexico serves no purpose except to deliver the message that he is the boss. Based on Vance’s speech on AI, it seems that the EU is about to get the same treatment; we will agree to provide protection from Putin and the Chinese in exchange for acceptance of American dominance in trade and technology.

The message won’t go over well in the EU. The irony, of course, is that the reactionary European nationalist parties that purport to be allied with MAGA will lead the charge against American hegemony. Does Trump really think that Marine Le Pen wants to make America, and not France, great again?