Cromwell

The civil war within MAGA regarding visas for foreign tech workers is intensifying. Musk responded to complaints within the Reactionary camp by calling MAGA nationalists “contemptible fools.” Sounds like Hillary’s “deplorables,” no?

The CLs and Reactionaries were only held together by their disdain for the left and their mutual desire to burn it down. The split that any reasonable person would have predicted is taking place even before Trump takes office. So what happens next?

Trump will do his best to keep the factions working together, but for a variety of reasons, it won’t work in the end. When forced to choose between Musk and his base–it will probably occur within the budget negotiations– I would bet on the base.

You could call him lucky: the would-be assassin just grazed him; the Supreme Court bailed him out; Biden was sick the day of the debate; Bibi divided his opponents; and most of all, the American public had selective amnesia about his performance in 2020 and hated inflation. His performance during the campaign was more meandering than spellbinding. And yet, Trump took advantage of the opportunities thrown in his way, ran a reasonably disciplined campaign, and prevailed in the election. No one can take that away from him.

Today, we face a future in which the ceiling is Trump’s first term and the floor is as low as a meteor crater. For that–and this obviously does not represent a judgment on the merits of the man–Trump is the man of the year.

I made four predictions in December 2023. Two of them were unequivocally accurate; Labour won the election, and China did not invade Taiwan. I’m not entitled to many prizes for those. On Ukraine, I predicted that the stalemate would continue, and that both sides would scale down and wait for the American election. This was partly true; progress has been slow and bloody, but the Russians have clearly gained the upper hand, and they continued to escalate instead of waiting on events.

I also said the Middle East would seethe but not explode, with the war in Gaza continuing for no obvious reason except Bibi’s survival. I would call that mostly true, but I did not foresee the degree to which Israel would degrade Hezbollah’s forces and embarrass the Iranians. 2025 consequently has the potential for dramatic change–possibly for better, possibly for worse–with regard to the imperiled regime in Iran.

I declined to predict the winner of the presidential race in December of 2024, but I suggested that it would come down to about 100,000 voters in swing states, and that the polls would look better for Biden at that point than they did in late 2023. All of that came true. I also correctly predicted that the GOP would win a narrow majority in the Senate, that the margin of victory in the House would be microscopic, and that there would be no Trump trials until after the primaries were effectively over. I was right about all of those matters, too.

My subsequent predictions were less accurate. Trump did not pick either of my choices for VP, largely because, at that point, he no longer thought it was necessary. Given the tenor of the campaign, I figured a political figure of some sort would be the subject of an assassination attempt, but I never would have guessed it would be Trump. Finally, I was correct in concluding that inflation and interest rates would be coming down by the time of the election, but I was too optimistic in thinking that it would make much of a difference. The bottom line was that the American public was unalterably convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the economy had performed dismally during the Biden years long before November. That is the reason Trump won–period.

Jesus came from the sticks, not the big city. His associates were humble workers, not members of the self-satisfied, prosperous elite. When he chose to go to Jerusalem and take on the corrupt establishment, it retaliated by crucifying him. But he prevailed in the end.

It’s not hard to see why MAGA types see an analogy to a more contemporary figure here. But there are a number of important differences between Christ and Trump. First, Trump came from New York. Second, Christ’s kingdom was not of this world; he didn’t seek political power to boost his own ego or punish his enemies. Finally, Christ had Peter as his wingman, not Elon Musk. He was a real populist; he didn’t just play one on TV.

We went to a sort of holiday cabaret two weeks ago, during which the cast performed a song called “Christmas is Always the Same.” It resonated because it is true. Christmas is indeed always the same, which is why it makes such a great measuring stick for all of the change that swirls around us every day.

For the young, Christmas is a time of hope and opportunity. For someone my age, it is a time to mourn what has been lost, to feel the icy hand of mortality, and to be grateful for what remains.

Burke famously said society is a partnership between the living, the dead, and the unborn. This is the time of year when I really experience the truth of that statement.

Merry Christmas!

OPTION #1: RIGHT-WING NEOLIBERALISM: Cut regulations and taxes and enter into as many free trade agreements as possible. This will result in lower prices for American consumers and higher profits for American companies, which will then increase investment, which will lead to higher productivity, which will ultimately lead to higher wages. Strengthening the safety net and compensating workers for the impacts of globalization is a mistake, because it gets the incentives all wrong; we should be rewarding winners, not losers.

OPTION #2: LEFT-WING NEOLIBERALISM: The same as #1, except that workers need to be fairly compensated for the negative impacts created by globalization and technological change through an expansion of the safety net. This keeps the efficiencies (and the low prices) in #1 but prevents political backlash against the system.

OPTION #3: IMPORT SUBSTITUTION: Wall off America with tariffs, thereby encouraging the revival of dying or dead industries. Deport illegal immigrants and create labor shortages. Wages will rise as a result.

Option #3 is supported by reactionaries who want the Godly Society and are willing to overlook the inevitable undesirable results–higher prices, uncompetitive businesses, and reduced exports. Option #1 is essentially the status quo–a wealthy but highly unequal society with a declining middle class (i.e., the dollar store economy). Option #2 has only been tried to a very limited extent–Obamacare being the obvious example–because business interests and the GOP prefer Option #1 and have the McConnell Project operating in their favor.

The Trump team contains supporters of both Option #1 and Option #3; it remains to be seen which path the man on golf cart ultimately prefers. The tragedy of Option #2 is that it has been lumped in with Option #1 in the eyes of the public even though the blue team has never been able to implement it due to GOP and business opposition. As a result, the Democrats have been accused of being indifferent to the plight of workers, which is as far from the case as it can get; what they want is the benefits of globalization and technological change without their negative impacts.

Why do we have so many federal regulations? Three reasons. First of all, Congress has neither the time nor the expertise to provide legislative answers to every possible regulatory issue in a world in which conditions and technology are changing rapidly. Second, the filibuster and frequently divided government make it impossible for Congress to pass legislation to address regulatory issues that were not anticipated at the time the statute was enacted. Third, if agencies had to start from scratch every time they interpret a vague statute, it would require vastly more resources than they actually have; in addition, the decisions would probably be inconsistent, which would be unfair to the regulated public. Using rules rather than quasi-judicial decisions to fill in the gaps is efficient and fair for everyone.

Musk and Ramaswamy think we have too many rules, but that really isn’t the point; it is the content of the rules, not their number, that matters. From the perspective of the billionaires, the problems are that the agency decisionmakers are predisposed to regulate in a way that hurts business and that the current rules aren’t appropriately responsive to business interests. The logical way to solve these problems is not to refuse to enforce rules, or to mindlessly eliminate masses of them, but to put business-friendly people in charge and to change the Biden rules to ease any unnecessary regulatory burdens. Trump presumably is working on the former; the latter will be a grind, due to the requirements in the APA, and will take years.

Do Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy have the patience to do what it takes to deregulate in a systematic way? I doubt it; they’re more into instant gratification.

(It’s 5:00 on December 24. Bob Cratchit is working in his cubicle at Scrooge, LLC when the boss, in “managing by walking around” mode, comes by.”

C: Mr. Scrooge, sir.

S: What is it . . . (he ostentatiously looks at the nameplate on the cubicle) . . .Cratchit?

C: Can I have tomorrow off, sir?

S: Why in the world would I do that?

C: Why . . . because it’s Christmas, sir.

S: Not in China, it isn’t. How am I supposed to compete with those people and their low labor costs if I give people like you unnecessary days off?

C: Actually, the Chinese get a whole week off for Chinese New Year. We should never have come back to the office, anyway. The pandemic might officially be over, but the virus is still out there, and I might get sick and give it to my child. He has special needs, you know.

S: (Sees a picture of Tiny Tim in the cubicle) Is that him?

C: Yes, sir.

(Scrooge walks around the office with an exaggerated limp)

C: There’s nothing funny about it, sir! He’s in really bad shape! If he gets the virus, it could kill him!

S: I don’t have time for that political correctness crap.

C: You sound just like Donald Trump, sir.

S: Well, Trump isn’t wrong about everything. That’s why he won the election.

C: And I suppose you voted for him.

S: With some reluctance, yes.

C: Why were you reluctant?

S: Because I hate the idea of his tariffs, and I know he’ll make people like me suck up to him every day of his life. He’s too capricious to be trusted. He does everything for the benefit of his own ego, not my bottom line.

C: Then why did you vote for him?

S: Because Biden and Harris were worse, and because he promised to keep my taxes low. I can trust him on that. Plus, the deregulation part is excellent, and keeping Elon around is a great idea.

C: Do you really think Elon cares about people like you?

S: He genuinely hates regulations. He may be more concerned about his own interests than people like me, but he’ll do his best for entrepreneurs in general. I’m confident of that. I just hope Trump doesn’t run him off before he can finish the deregulation job.

C: So what about Christmas?

S: Biden’s still in charge for now, and his regulations are still in place. If I don’t give in, he might use his last month in office to get you people to unionize. And Vance might go along with that. I don’t trust him, either. Why couldn’t Trump have picked someone like Rick Scott as his VP?

C: So I get the day off?

S: Sort of. There will be a Zoom meeting at noon. I’ll text you the password.

C: Thank you, sir!

S: And don’t even think about ghosting me!

David French, like many others, wonders how Christians can be so cruel. He concludes it is because some of them believe they have a monopoly on truth and a corresponding unlimited right to impose their views on others. He’s right, but this phenomenon isn’t limited to Christians; the CCP and the extremely woke fall into that category as well.

French is writing about liberal democracy as much as Christianity. As I’ve noted before, liberal democracy requires voters who are willing to admit they might be wrong and who are tolerant of their opponents’ rights as a result. Liberals, in the classical sense, in other words.

Does this condition still exist in today’s America? Can liberal democracy exist without liberals? The answer to the first question is a qualified yes; only about half of Trump voters, by my estimate, want to burn it down and use the power of the executive branch to reinstate the society of the 1950s. The answer to the second question, however, is no.

Syria, to put it mildly, is a mess, albeit one in which there is now reason to hope. Assume for the moment that the rebels are the Islamic moderates they claim to be, and that they succeed in gaining control of the entire country. What happens to our erstwhile allies, the Syrian Kurds?

Trump admires Erdogan even more than Putin. Don’t expect him to be swayed by any sense of loyalty or obligation here. He’ll sell out the Kurds in a heartbeat.

I can almost hear it in the distance; Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are telling the Democrats they should be grateful they couldn’t eliminate the filibuster. Are they right?

Not really, because the GOP has taken a legislative abortion ban off the table, and the rest of its legislative agenda revolves around tax and spending issues that will be addressed through reconciliation. The most extreme manifestations of Trumpism will be accomplished through executive action, not legislation. As a result, the filibuster will only be marginally relevant during the next two years, and probably not at all after the 2026 midterms.

I predicted some time ago that the legal frontier on abortion would involve the extraterritorial application of red state laws in blue states. As I understand it, this is already happening; the great state of Texas is taking action against an abortion provider in, I believe, New York who mailed pills to a Texas resident. How will these cases turn out?

I can imagine three different fact situations: the one described above; a doctor performs an abortion on a red state resident in a state in which the abortion is legal; and a red state tries to prosecute blue state residents for putting information about obtaining an abortion on the web. My guess is that the Supreme Court decides that the first provider is subject to Texas law, because he deliberately took an action that had direct effects within the boundaries of Texas, but that the other two actors are protected by blue state laws, because their actions are not sufficiently connected to the particular red state to meet requirements of federalism and due process.

CLs despise a large state regardless of who runs it and for what purpose. Reactionaries don’t long for a government that can be drowned in the bathtub, but they do hate the portions of it that they think work against the interests of “real Americans.”

The point of commonality is the desire to make large cuts in discretionary spending on the sectors of government both factions dislike, such as education. Expect that to be a major theme of the Trump years virtually from his first day in office.

Democrats are united on their vision of a multi-ethnic liberal democracy which uses the power of the state to promote economic growth, increased equality, and justice for historically oppressed groups. The divisions among them relate, not to the vision, but to their perceived ability to push changes past the voters and through the system. That’s why I have always identified the blue team factions as “fundis” and “realos.”

The GOP, on the other hand, contains supporters of wildly different visions for America. CLs want as small a state as possible in order to promote negative forms of “freedom” and increased economic growth; they look forward to a glorious libertarian future, not the past. Reactionaries, on the other hand, want a robust state to bring back the economy and the society of the 1950s. CLs lionize superstar businessmen and dream of Galt’s Gulch; Reactionaries are suspicious of billionaires and clamor for tariffs and deportations to recreate, in their eyes, the Godly Society.

The Democrats have historically been successful in getting large parts of their agenda through the system because progressives prefer half a loaf to nothing. The first Trump term, on the other hand, was legislatively sterile because Republicans are only united on what they dislike, tax cuts being the exception that proves the rule. The 38 CL votes against yesterday’s version of the CR are evidence that the divisions persist. As a result, Trump 2.0 will probably resemble the first term with regard to the lack of legislation; executive actions, of course, are another matter.