Cromwell

But you already knew that.

There are parts of the right that are almost as dedicated to Taiwan as to Israel. To some extent, this is based on sound strategic reasons; if you doubt it, find Taiwan on a map relative to Japan and South Korea. But there is an element of passionate ideological loathing of Chinese communism as well, along with a sprinkling of racism.

If Trump makes anything like the grand bargain I have described in a previous post, it will be viewed as a betrayal by this part of the right. Will that result in a rebellion with meaningful results? If the event occurs towards the end of Trump’s term, and Trump is clearly viewed as a failure by the electorate, maybe. Otherwise, history tells us that GOP politicians are way too fearful of the MAGA base, which is indifferent to Taiwan, to do anything seen as hostile to Trump.

California is burning. Hurricanes are getting worse. Insurance rates are soaring. And yet, the left isn’t even trying to use climate change as an issue, and Trump is engaging in open energy hypocrisy by discriminating against renewables while proclaiming a fictitious “emergency.” Why is this happening?

A big part of it is the reactionary dream of the Godly Society, in which real men exploit fossil fuels and make lots of money, while real women stay home and have lots of babies. Part of it is self-interest on the part of wealthy extractors of fossil fuels. But part of it is fear of the American equivalent of the French “gilets jaunes;” people in rural areas bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of transitioning to renewables and turn their anger into political power.

For the nation as a whole, turning our back on sources of energy that will be, in the long run, limitless and cheap as well as more planet-friendly is insane. If Musk actually wants to do some good for America, converting Trump on this issue would be an appropriate place to start.

Imagine this scenario: Xi offers Trump a free hand in the Western Hemisphere and a managed trade package which eliminates the American trade deficit in exchange for a free hand in Asia. Does Trump take the deal?

No other American leader would even consider it. The dividing of the world into spheres of influence would be viewed as a betrayal of American values by moralists; realists would say America was giving up the more valuable parts of the world and losing influence; and history tells us the deal–particularly the managed trade part–would be unenforceable in any event. But Trump is a mercantilist who loves making deals and believes American interests revolve around dominating our back yard, not Asia. He might go for it.

Roll over, Thom Tillis.

Tell McConnell the news.

—–with apologies to Chuck Berry

As I expected, Collins and Murkowski did the right thing. So did Mitch McConnell, who seems comfortable in a Mitt Romney for the second term role. No one else did, however, including Thom Tillis, who was the most likely fourth GOP no vote.

If Hegseth and Trump turn our military into a right-wing militia that is better suited to fight left-wing Americans than foreign enemies, the people of North Carolina will know where the blame lies.

C: I haven’t seen you in a few months. What did you think about Trump standing with the tech aristocrats at the inauguration?

S: It was great! They were kissing his ring. They were bowing down to him. They know who’s boss.

C: Do they? Have you been following the story about the visas for foreign tech guys?

S: I don’t care about tech guys. I just don’t want foreigners coming over the border, taking our jobs, and driving up the cost of housing.

C: Trump seems to be siding with the tech guys over the MAGA stalwarts. Doesn’t that bother you?

S: I trust Trump. He knows who his real friends are. He won’t sell us out. This is just a phase.

C: What did you think of his friend Ramaswamy basically saying Americans were stupid and lazy and should be kicked in the butt by immigrant Asians?

S: That’s offensive, of course, but it’s Ramaswamy, not Trump. Trump would never say that.

C: I assume you’re looking forward to the tariffs.

S: Of course! They’re the key to bringing back the economy of the 1950s. Men will be respected again, and women will be able to stay home and have lots of babies. It can’t happen without big tariffs.

C: But we don’t have them yet. And Trump’s economic team contains lots of really rich establishment types. Aren’t you worried that they will talk him out of tariffs just to keep the markets happy?

S: It worries me a bit, but I trust Trump. He’ll give us the tariffs sooner or later. He just needs some time.

C: Did you see the quote from Musk about running off reactionaries from the Republican Party? What did you think of that?

S: Musk might be spending a lot of time at Mar-a-Lago, but he’s just a guest. Trump’s in charge.

C: Did it ever occur to you that after Trump burns it down, he might turn things over to Musk and his big tech friends?

S: No! Never! I trust Trump! He would never sell me out!

C: What if you’re wrong? After all, Trump has screwed over more people than he can count. What will you do then?

S: I refuse to even think about it. Trump won’t let me down. Period!

C: I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

I am reading now that DOGE has become an entity whose purpose is to improve the use of technology within the federal government. In that role, it can actually be useful. Why has the focus shifted from cutting spending and regulations?

Because, as I have pointed out previously, technology cannot be the solution to the regulatory problem. The big savings that Musk promised can only be achieved by cutting safety net programs; the initiative for that has to come from Congress. In addition, simply repealing or refusing to enforce regulations is a highly inefficient way of dealing with ambiguities in statutes. What the right really wants is to interpret statutes in a more business-friendly way, not to get rid of regulations altogether. That requires legal expertise, knowledge of the regulatory subject matter, and a lengthy slog through the APA. Trump and Musk lack the patience and the background to do that.

The essence of mercantilism is that it views the state, not the individual, as the focus of economic activity. No one doubts that Trump is a mercantilist. How would this operate in practice relative to China?

It makes perfect sense to view the Chinese state, not individuals and corporations, as the party on the other side; after all, the “Chinese dream” is for China as a whole to become strong and prosperous, and individuals to own a microscopic piece of the pie. The CCP is so entwined with the Chinese economy that it can plausibly direct its individual actors to buy, or refuse to buy, American products, for example. On the American side, however, this approach won’t work; Trump can’t order you or me to buy x number of Chinese products, because our system subordinates the state to individual economic actors. That means any attempt at managed trade, which is clearly Trump’s objective, is going to be completely one-sided.

The birthright citizenship executive order looks like the legal equivalent of the Gaetz nomination–a deliberate provocation directed at the judicial system. What is Trump trying to do here?

From his perspective, he probably thinks he can’t lose. If his position is somehow upheld, he will know that the legal system has completely capitulated to him. If, as is more likely, the executive order is invalidated, he can scream about how the establishment is thwarting him again. He needs a foil to maintain his populist bona fides; the Supreme Court could very well do the job for him.

I don’t think he will defy this order if he loses. That is much more likely if the courts strike down one of his core deportation measures. Birthright citizenship, an abstract issue with few practical short-term consequences, is more of a trial balloon.

Russell Vought made little attempt to deny that Trump intends to impound funds appropriated by Congress on the basis that the statute prohibiting impoundment is unconstitutional. The ability to spend for particular purposes is at the heart of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. And yet, it appears that Vought will be confirmed on the basis that he is competent.

A competent revolutionary, in fact. The establishment should logically prefer revolutionaries who are incompetent.

What was that Lenin said about capitalists selling the rope that would hang them?

As is his wont, Trump threatened the Russians with tariffs and sanctions if they refuse to come to the bargaining table. Will Putin be impressed?

Hardly. The only economic measures that Trump could apply that haven’t been tried yet would raise the price of gasoline for his voters. Is that really plausible?

The only leverage we have over Putin is a threat to escalate the war. If Trump threatens that, given his record on Ukraine, Putin won’t take him seriously. I wouldn’t, either.

Well, that didn’t take long. As it turns out, multiple cases have been filed in a variety of federal courts on the birthright citizenship issue. A federal judge in Washington has already issued an order blocking the enforcement of the executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” He even chastised the DOJ attorneys for defending an indefensible position.

This is no surprise. What really matters is what happens next. The case will be at the door of the Supreme Court pretty quickly. Will the Court stand up to Trump or roll over? If the former, will Trump obey the order? The answers to those questions may well define his presidency.

Ramaswamy has cut his ties with DOGE in order to run for governor of Ohio, a prize he is highly unlikely to win. The accounts I have read indicate that his departure was engineered by Elon Musk. What is going on here?

Ramaswamy, from Musk’s perspective, has two serious shortcomings: he’s too foreign and too honest. A sharp-tongued ethnic Indian telling American workers they’re too soft and stupid isn’t a good look for the project with the MAGA crowd. Even Musk, who isn’t exactly known for his sensitivity to public opinion, understands that.

But don’t miss the irony here! Ramaswamy’s idea of replacing bumbling Americans with sharper Asians is an updated version of the Great Replacement Theory.

The principal reason the Democrats lost in 2024 was public dissatisfaction, deserved or not, with the state of the economy. A related reason was that the Democrats had no viable plan to improve matters due to the operation of the McConnell Project; there was no way to get enough votes in the Senate for legislation to replace the dollar store economy, and the Supreme Court now has the final say on regulations it doesn’t like. What does this mean for 2026 and 2028?

For 2026, it doesn’t mean much; the Democrats will be able to run simply on the mistakes and the overreaching of the new administration. But in 2028, they will have to decide whether they will campaign as a voice for simple competence with no great (and therefore divisive) vision for the future or as a populist party determined to crush the dollar store and the techno-aristocracy by eliminating the filibuster and reforming the judiciary. If Trump is perceived as a failure, the former course will be safer, if uninspiring; if he is viewed as a success, the latter will be a necessity.

As I’ve noted before, the right views local and state cops as an essential barrier between respectable, Godfearing white citizens and vengeful, ruthless minority criminals. Federal law enforcement officers, on the other hand, are jackbooted thugs who want to take away your liberty to defraud suckers and cheat on your taxes. They need to go.

On its face, the Capitol law enforcement officers who were injured on January 6 resemble the first group more than the second. Trump, however, has effectively concluded they belonged in the jackbooted thug cohort by pardoning rioters who committed violent crimes. Most of his GOP allies, but not all, appear to agree with him. Remember that the next time you hear the right talking about the sanctity of the law.