Cromwell

Thomas Friedman thinks Trump is making a terrible mistake by talking about his aspirations to take Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. After all, how can Trump position himself as a defender of international law with regard to Ukraine and Taiwan under those circumstances? Xi and Putin will simply throw his imperialism back in his face.

Friedman’s comment is correct, but it is based on an incorrect premise; Trump doesn’t pretend to care about international law or human rights–only power. He won’t make those arguments to Xi and Putin. He is undoubtedly going to help Putin carve up Ukraine, and if offered a deal with China on spheres of influence and managed trade that sacrifices Taiwan, expect him to take it.

These should focus primarily on Trump’s tariffs, as follows:

1. Does Trump intend to impose universal tariffs?
2. What authority will he rely on for that purpose? Does he plan to seek legislative authority, or go it alone?
3. For what purpose will the universal tariffs be imposed? Will they be a temporary measure to reduce trade barriers in the rest of the world, or a permanent attempt to create an economy based on import substitution and the recreation of fading industries?
4. How will the administration respond when our trading partners retaliate?
5. Where will the money come from to provide compensation to the victims of retaliation?
6. What standards will be established to provide exemptions for the tariffs? Who will be responsible for administering them?
7. Will the tariffs be applied to goods that are not, and cannot be, produced in our country?
8. Do you believe, as Trump apparently does, that foreigners will pay all of the tariffs, and there will be no resulting inflation? What historical experience do you rely on for that opinion?
9. You and Trump have indicated that America can produce even more energy than it does today, thereby lowering consumer prices. Lower prices will reduce the incentives to drill. How do you plan to overcome the market on this issue?
10. How is reducing public investment in renewable energy consistent with your plan to make America an energy powerhouse?

It is frequently said that people seek power for its own sake, but that isn’t true. Some people desire power because it creates objective material advantages; some are emotionally needy and use power to prop themselves up psychologically; and some honestly believe that the well-being of their followers completely depends on them.

To Trump, power is everything–nothing else really matters. Why? For all three of my stated reasons, but predominantly for #2.

If Trump succeeds in using law enforcement to persecute his political opponents, Pam Bondi will be the head of the snake. As a result, she needs to be asked the following questions:

1. You took the position on TV that Trump was cheated out of the 2020 election. The courts have said otherwise. Will you insist that they were wrong in DOJ court filings?
2. Do you agree with the unitary executive theory?
3. If Donald Trump calls you and says he wants Mr. X to be put in jail even though there is no meaningful evidence against him, what do you do?
4. If Kash Patel calls and says he wants to arrest Ms. Y based on a legal theory that you know is frivolous, what do you do?
5. Will the DOJ focus its civil rights activities on members of historically powerless groups or on protecting white men from discrimination?
6. If Kash Patel calls and says he wants to arrest someone who was on the list in his book to be arrested, will his request be given additional legal scrutiny?
7. Do you believe the reforms made after Watergate to depoliticize federal law enforcement were a mistake?
8. Do you intend to undo them?

Mark Zuckerberg is doing everything he can to appease Trump by turning Facebook into a MAGA sandbox. Why?

First of all, as I’ve noted before, content moderation is difficult and expensive. Trump gives him an excuse to do something he probably wanted to do anyway. Second, Meta has been clashing with the EU over a variety of issues, including moderation; maybe Zuckerberg can persuade Trump to treat Facebook as a national tech champion that should be protected against foreign overregulation through threats of sanctions and tariffs. That doesn’t seem implausible to me.

In all likelihood, Zuckerberg’s DEI and moderation issues weren’t evidence of his essential liberalism; they were a response to demands made by his workforce and his customers. How will they react to the counterrevolution? TBD.

Most of the discussion about Hegseth’s qualifications has focused on alleged incidents of personal misconduct. I have no idea if those allegations are true, but I am quite certain that a committee meeting is not the best way to resolve them. In any event, they do not represent the best reason to refuse to confirm the man. The real questions should revolve around his willingness to use the military as an active agent against anyone other than white Christian men in American culture wars.

And so:

1. You proudly wear a tattoo that contains a slogan that has been linked to white supremacists. I know you will deny being a white supremacist, but how, under the circumstances, can you lead a military that is disproportionately black?
2. You have apparently told some senators that you have changed your mind about women in combat. Why should we believe you are sincere about this last-minute conversion?
3. You have identified yourself as a “crusader” and openly expressed your contempt for Islam. How is that going to go over with the thousands of Muslims in the military?
4. If Donald Trump gives you a clearly unconstitutional order to use the military over the objections of state and local politicians to shoot unarmed civilians, will you do it?
5. Does the military represent and protect all of America, or just the parts that you agree with?
6. Would you ever consider requiring members of the military to take an oath to Donald Trump personally?
7. Do you view members of the military more as problem solvers or unrestrained professional killers?
8. In the past, you championed members of the military who were found guilty of war crimes through the chain of command. Will you continue to do that as head of the DOD?

Under most circumstances, empires are more trouble than they’re worth. The exceptions are when the mother country has the ability and the willingness to ruthlessly exploit the people and resources of the colony for its own purposes (Spain, Rome) or when the colony can provide significant manpower for war (Team GB in World War I). With those principles in mind, how does acquiring Greenland stack up?

It doesn’t. Greenland is a possession of a NATO ally, and it has a very small population. National security is already guaranteed by Denmark’s ownership. Greenland’s resources can be purchased and used by Americans on the same terms as anyone else. What’s the point?

Well, I guess it makes sense if you assume NATO is about to pass away.

Trump wants to annex Canada! You can’t say it hasn’t been tried before. There was an unsuccessful American invasion of Canada in the early days of the Revolutionary War, and annexation was one of the two principal reasons (impressment obviously being the other) behind the American declaration of war in 1812.

But there have been no serious disputes between America and Canada since the 19th century, which has been a great diplomatic success for both parties. With some bad luck and worse policy, Canada could have become America’s version of Ukraine. Who would want that?

Putin and Xi, for starters.

For years, Viktor Orban was viewed as a role model for an America run by MAGA. Today, however, it appears that he has been eclipsed by Milei, who combines a lot of gruff reactionary talk on social issues with an economic program that is a CL’s dream. What does that tell you about MAGA?

That, thanks largely to Elon Musk, the wind is blowing from the CL side. Will that last? Probably not, because the American economy in no way resembles Argentina’s, and the CL program will do a lot of damage in the unlikely event that it gets through Congress.

Given his experience and mindset, it was inevitable that Trump would view the Panama Canal treaty as the worst real estate deal in American history–think the Louisiana Purchase or Alaska in reverse. Is he right?

No, because the treaty was not a real estate deal. It was an effort to prove to the people and leaders of Central and South America that the bad old days of Yankee imperialism were over. It was also an attempt to forestall future efforts by indigenous left-wing militants to sabotage the operation of the canal. In those terms, the agreement succeeded admirably.

Trump doesn’t understand these ideas; he only believes in dollars and military force. But then, he wants to bring back Yankee imperialism, so what did you expect?

The Economist divides Trump’s economic advisers into three groups: America Firsters; mainstream conservatives; and tech tycoons. Their interests overlap in some respects, but their policy ideas are very different. Does this analysis fit the facts?

Yes, because it aligns perfectly with the factional split that I identified ten years ago. America Firsters are Reactionaries; mainstream conservatives are PBPs; and the tech tycoons are CLs. In other words, the divergence of opinions on economic issues is not a new development; it is a key feature of the Republican Party.

As we know from extensive experience, Trump likes to keep his options open as long as possible. He rarely commits to a course of action until he absolutely has to, and even his apparently final positions can change very quickly. He believes this unpredictability is an asset in dealing with foreign leaders.

But what about Congress? How do Thune and Johnson deal with a man who can pull the rug out from under them at a moment’s notice? How do the Republicans move legislation through the system when they don’t know what the man in charge really wants?

They will find that Trump has very few fixed ideas about domestic policy other than the need to punish his enemies and the desire to be the center of attention. Their best course of action is to do what they think is right and let the man on golf cart take the credit for it if it succeeds.

There was never any plausible national security reason to block the sale of US Steel to a Japanese company. The only justification for it was political pandering in a swing state. But the election is over, and the blue team lost. What is the point of doing it now?

The Democrats need to position themselves to take advantage of the unpopularity of Trump’s tariffs. Embracing mindless protectionism in the dying days of the Biden presidency is a really poor way to do it.

I did a parody of this song for Trump in 2015, but given Musk’s emerging interest in running EU countries, it seems even more appropriate today.

ELON MUSK JUST WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD

Welcome to your life.

There’s no turning back.

Even while he sleeps

He will find you.

He builds spaceships and Tesla cars.

He wants to move mankind to Mars.

Elon Musk just wants to rule the world.

__________

It’s by his design.

It’s without remorse.

It’s all his to decide

And you can’t stop him.

America’s too small for him.

The EU’s next; its future’s dim.

Elon Musk just wants to rule the world.

________________

Parody of “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” by Tears for Fears.

Eight years ago, Trump irrevocably ripped it with half of America with his “American Carnage” speech. Does he intend to do it again? Will he rewrite the history of 1/6/21 on the steps of the Capitol? Will he order blue America to get behind him, or else? Will he just give us a recycled campaign speech? Or will he make some effort to reach out to the millions of people who didn’t vote for him?

The speech will set the tone for his presidency. My guess is that you will see elements of all of the above, but that the overall effect will be very dark, and the blue team will be completely turned off again.