Cromwell

The big tech companies are falling all over themselves to suck up to Trump. Why?

Because, in spite of Trump’s complaints about them, he is their natural ally in many respects. He will cut their taxes, call off the antitrust dogs, and treat them as national champions in his dealings with Europe. In addition, they never wanted to engage in content moderation, which costs them money and alienates customers. Trump will give them the perfect excuse to let right-wing extremism rip.

There is, of course, the little problem with Trump’s immigration policies, but the man on golf cart might tone that down when it benefits him politically. We’ll see.

There has been a pro-Russian thread to German foreign policy ever since it became a single unified nation in 1871. Bismarck had the Reinsurance Treaty; the Weimar Republic made a secret deal with the Bolsheviks to facilitate rearmament; Hitler agreed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939; and some German politicians promoted Ostpolitik during the Cold War days.

Trump and his advisers plan to slap tariffs on German exports and to bully the Germans into spending far more on defense than they do today. What if Putin offers them cheap gas and a non-aggression pact in exchange for acquiescence to Russian dominance in Ukraine and a refusal to rearm? It would save the Germans a lot of money at a time when their economy is struggling.

Trump probably believes this option is unthinkable, so the Germans will ultimately have to kiss his ring. History and common sense tell us he’s wrong about that.

You’re probably familiar with the World War I analogy in which the US plays the role of the principal status quo power–the UK–and China is Germany, the up-and-coming revisionist country. But who would play the other roles in the analogy?

The EU would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire, because it is a multi-national entity in relative decline that is very difficult to govern. India–not really aligned with either alliance and looking for the best deal–would be Italy, of course. Japan and South Korea–large economies that are nonetheless dwarfed by an aggressive neighbor–would be France. And Russia? It would be, well, Russia–an economic pygmy with a fearsome military and imperial ambitions.

Who will play Serbia? Probably Taiwan.

An article in the NYT notes that the belief that the FBI is dominated by left-wingers who unfairly targeted Trump is now GOP orthodoxy. Does that make sense?

It makes about as much sense as saying that our universities are controlled by right-wing intellectuals, or that our captains of industry are communists. Jobs in law enforcement are typically populated by order-loving conservatives, not flaming liberals. Why would the FBI be any different?

It isn’t. In case you forgot, the agency followed its protocol by keeping the Trump investigation secret during the waning days of the 2016 election, while making its actions regarding Clinton’s e-mails extremely public. That breach of normal procedure undoubtedly helped Trump win the election.

Oh, and Christopher Wray was appointed by Trump, not Biden.

Christian Democrats and Reactionaries have similar views about using the government to restore traditional moral values. So what makes them different?

CDs believe in liberal democracy and its processes. They worry that pushing the envelope too hard against the views of the immoral majority will result in either tyranny or a powerful backlash against the movement. As a result, they support cautious and incremental change. Reactionaries don’t share their scruples or their fears; to them, the hour for the counterrevolution has come, and must be exploited to the fullest regardless of the risks.

Here’s where Trump stands with the factions as of today (the CDs are no longer Republicans, so they don’t count):

CLs: Musk, Ramaswamy, and the DOGE are just awesome! Maybe we’re heading for a Milei moment in America! We’re worried about the tariffs and the deportations, however. We hope he’s just bluffing.

PBPs: The new economic team is solid, and we love the tax cuts and deregulation. Some of the spending cuts will hurt us, however, and we’re worried about the tariffs and the deportations. We hope he’s just bluffing.

Reactionaries: Kudos for Kash, Pam, and Pete. We love the culture wars, the tariffs, and the deportations. We’re worried about Musk, Ramaswamy, and the DOGE, however; they might cut programs we really need. We hope Trump is just bluffing.

The obvious message here is that Trump is beholden to groups with agendas that are wildly inconsistent now that the left has been vanquished. Expect him to ricochet like a ping-pong ball between them for the next four years.

There is no doubt that Trump’s victory was largely fueled by the public anger over inflation. What is the GOP planning to do about it?

Tariffs and deportations will result in higher prices for goods, including food. Deporting construction workers, imposing tariffs on materials, and providing federal protection for single-family zoning will drive up housing prices. Cutting Obamacare subsidies will cause many consumers to pay more for health care. Reducing the federal role in higher education will make it less affordable. There is no plan, as far as I can tell, to deal with rising child care costs.

Against that, Trump intends to reduce the price of gas by encouraging domestic oil production even though it is already at a record high. Does that sound like much of an inflation-fighting agenda to you?

History is full of revolutionary groups who promised moderation but delivered extremism, either due to circumstances or their own inclinations. As a result, it was appropriate for the Israelis to destroy the Syrian military assets (they probably regret not taking advantage of the opportunity during the civil war) and for the Americans to bomb IS.

But it would be a mistake not to explore the opportunity to work with the new government, whatever it may be. If the absolute worst case occurs–an IS takeover, which is highly unlikely–the regime will be surrounded by enemies that are far more powerful than it is, so containing it will not be overly difficult. On the other hand, it is certain that the government’s principal enemies for the foreseeable future will be the remnants of the Assad regime and its allies–Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia. Why not work together against the common adversaries?

As I’ve noted before, Trump essentially delegated his Latin America portfolio to Marco Rubio in his first term. Rubio was the mastermind behind the well-meaning but unsuccessful efforts to unseat Maduro. Misery ensued, and millions of Venezuelans left the country–some for America. Trump then used the Venezuelan refugees as an argument against the weakness of Biden’s immigration policy. In effect, he profited from his own failure.

But Trump and Rubio will own Venezuela the minute they take office, and they will find their choices unpalatable. If they turn the screws even further on Maduro, it will result in more unwanted refugees and higher gas prices. If they don’t, it will be an admission that the original policy of maximum pressure in the name of liberal democracy was a costly mistake, and they will look like sell-outs to the rabid right-wingers in Florida who want regime change.

Which of these bad options will they choose? Would they consider a more extreme solution–military intervention–to avoid them? TBD.

CHAIRMAN: We have now reached the time to ask questions. Senator McConnell.

MM: What experience do you have that qualifies you to run an agency as large as the FBI?

KP: What’s it to you, RINO?

MM: The American people have a right to know your qualifications.

KP: I religiously follow Donald Trump. I hate the same people he does. That’s my qualification.

MM: You think hating half of America is a job qualification?

KP: Absolutely! We’re going to make them pay, too. They did everything they could to shut him down. Now they’re going to get a dose of their own medicine.

CHAIRMAN: Senator Collins.

SC: What relationship should the FBI Director have with President Trump?

KP: I’ll follow his orders. Every one of them.

SC: So if President Trump calls you and orders you to put members of Congress in jail, how will you respond?

KP: By asking which jail he wants them in.

SC: Do you believe President Trump has a mandate to imprison any American he wants for any reason he wants?

KP: The American people showed their faith in President Trump by electing him. The Supreme Court has ruled he isn’t accountable to anyone once he takes office. That means he can put anyone he wants in prison. The lives and property of every American are completely at his disposal. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

SC: Not in my lifetime, it isn’t. The president isn’t a king.

KP: Better watch your step, or you might be one of the next ones to taste prison food.

CHAIRMAN: Senator Murkowski.

LM: If you use the law as a weapon against President Trump’s opponents, what do you think will happen to you if they win the next election?

KP: That question practically answers itself.

LM: What do you mean?

KP: Do the math, senator.

If Trump decides to use the Insurrection Act to facilitate deportations and crush dissent, what can you do? It’s a bit counterintuitive, but move to a red state! Trump’s focus will be on the blue states–large urban areas in particular. He will have no reason to interfere in states that are run by his friends.

The U.S. Army is a huge institution with centuries of history. It has never been an instrument of a particular political party and ideology. Its culture is constitutional and nonpartisan. So turning it into a militia would be a very difficult task, right?

Actually, no. All Pete Hegseth would have to do is require every soldier to take a new oath promising unqualified support to Donald Trump and Jesus Christ (possibly not in that order). Anyone refusing to take the oath would be discharged. Everyone left would be a “crusader” willing to kill for Trump regardless of the law and the Constitution.

This would almost certainly be illegal, of course. But what would Hegseth and Trump care? And what practical power would the judiciary have to resist the might of the military?

The key to overthrowing an unpopular autocracy is to puncture its image of invulnerability. Once that happens, the regime can crumble very quickly. One day, Assad is apparently in complete control of Syria; the next, he’s hiding in Moscow.

There is a lesson here for Xi and Putin. Of course, they already knew it. That’s why they fear “color revolutions” so intensely, and why they won’t tolerate even the smallest manifestation of opposition.

I expect Trump to start threatening Iran the day he takes office. For once, he will be right; for the reasons I listed in the previous post, the Islamic Republic has never been so vulnerable. A few months from now, the regime may have a bomb, so time is of the essence. But what should the American objective be–a new deal on missiles and proxy forces as well as the bomb, or regime change?

Bibi will be calling for regime change every chance he gets. But Xi and Putin will say no; the latter may even threaten the use of nukes in Ukraine if Trump goes too far. The Sunni Arab states, which would have led the charge for regime change in past years, will probably urge restraint, as well.

Trump likes to make deals. I think he will sell out the regime’s critics within Iran and limit his demands to missiles, proxies, and the bomb.

The Russians and Iranians have fled Syria along with their client, just as the Russians were forced to leave Afghanistan decades ago. It doesn’t just happen to Americans, folks; nation-building in the Third World usually doesn’t work, but giving the keys to the most competent thug you can find can fail, as well.

The Iranian forward defense approach is in tatters. Its proxies have been neutered. Its air defenses don’t work against Israeli attacks. The public despises the regime, the economy is in bad shape, and a succession crisis looms. What happens now?

The Iranian government has two choices: it can build a bomb, call for more Russian aid, and double down on repression and austerity at home; or it can make a deal with the Americans and Israelis that imposes more limits on its ability to project force than the previous nuclear deal in exchange for a promise to forego war and regime change. Which will it choose?

In the short run, expect mixed signals in an effort to buy time. After that, I make no predictions. The Supreme Leader will want to double down, but even he may conclude that is no longer a viable option.