Cromwell

Hawaii was an independent nation until the 1890s. The McKinley Tariff, however, made it impossible for ethnic American sugar plantation owners to make money by exporting to the United States. The plantation owners consequently generated a coup and called for military assistance from the US, which was, in fact, forthcoming. This act of imperialism was very controversial, but Hawaii was ultimately annexed because of its value to American security during the Spanish-American War.

Icy Greenland doesn’t look much like balmy Hawaii at first glance, but Trump wants it for its strategic location and its minerals even though it belongs to a fellow NATO member. Could he be contemplating a coup and follow-up invasion–tactics also used in Panama–to expedite a 21st century annexation? It certainly can’t be ruled out, even though, as the Danes correctly note, it would mean the end of NATO.

1. CDs: The law of the jungle is the opposite of Christianity.
2. CLs: We believe in freedom and a small state. That’s the antithesis of the imperial state, too.
3. PBPs: We welcome the opportunity to make more money in our hemisphere, but we don’t want to subsidize an imperial state, and we see lots of danger in imperialism. We prefer free trade and stable foreign relations.
4. Reactionaries: Brief exhibitions of American military might are OK, but we don’t want to go to war for oil companies, and we certainly don’t support the costs and risks inherent in occupations.

The bottom line here is that Trump’s imperialism is a personal, not a partisan, quest. It isn’t being driven by anyone in his party outside of his inner circle. As soon as something goes wrong, there will be major problems.

Marco Rubio would undoubtedly like to take his family’s homeland as part of the new American empire. But Cuba no longer presents any kind of a military or ideological threat to us, and it doesn’t have oil or any valuable minerals. For Trump, it is a less appealing target than, say, Greenland.

Don’t expect it to be a high priority for Trump in the next few years.

The Venezuela episode has shown once again that Trump has zero interest in upholding international law. The only law he respects is that of the jungle–the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must. That’s not exactly great news for the people of Cuba, Greenland, Taiwan, and Ukraine.

On a related note, it occurred to me this morning that Trump’s idea of a successful military campaign is one of those mass smash-and-grab retail thefts you sometimes see in California. Unfortunately, that kind of approach won’t help us take the oil; for that, an occupation will be required.

On Saturday, Trump told us that he was going to run Venezuela, and that we were taking the oil. Yesterday, Marco Rubio said we were not going to occupy the country; we would merely maintain our blockade and coerce the remnants of the old regime to do our bidding.

The Rubio version of the plan is a return to the tactics before the attack. If he’s right, and no occupation is contemplated, what was the point of killing scores of Venezuelans and Cubans? Just to prove to unfriendly leaders that we can?

What’s the real plan, Stan?

Maduro’s alleged role as a “narco-terrorist” was never more than a pretext for American actions against Venezuela. Nevertheless, Trump has captured him, so he must now give the man a public trial and prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What if the prosecution fails?

I don’t know how strong the DOJ’s case is, but there are bound to be significant jurisdictional issues, and there is reason to believe that Maduro’s personal involvement in the drug trade was overblown for propaganda purposes. The case, like so many others, may turn out to be an embarrassment–Trump’s equivalent of the missing WMD. As a result, I’m guessing that Bondi won’t exactly be in a huge hurry to get the case to trial.

Assume you are the Venezuelan Minister of the Interior. You are a patriot, and the thought of Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth running your country doesn’t exactly appeal to you. You are planning to resist. What do you do?

Three things. First, you prepare for a guerrilla war, to be fought mostly in the jungle. You can anticipate some assistance from the ELN, from drug gangs, and from lots of international volunteers. Second, you take American hostages. Third, you plant explosives with timers on as many oil producing facilities as possible, and you make sure Trump hears about it. It is now clear, if there was ever any doubt, that the principal American objective is control over Venezuelan oil; Trump might be more willing to negotiate if he has reason to believe he will be inheriting nothing but wreckage.

My prediction has officially been blown up. Trump says we are going to “run” Venezuela. Exactly how that is going to happen, he didn’t really say, probably because he has no idea.

We will have to send a large force to occupy the country. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that the remainder of the regime simply surrenders and doesn’t start a guerrilla war, it will take years to fix Venezuela’s oil facilities. If and when that occurs, the benefits will flow to multinational oil companies, not to average Americans. And that’s the best case scenario; the worst case is Iraq.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Our military attacked bases in Venezuela and apparently captured Maduro and his wife early this morning. Does that completely blow up my Venezuela prediction three days into the new year? Yes and no. Yes, in that we obviously won’t be making a deal with Maduro. No, in that most of the regime’s security apparatus will remain intact, and there has been no invasion. The use of a large number of American ground troops will be the red line for both the MAGA base and my prediction.

What happens now? If Machado can saunter back into her country and receive the peaceful surrender of the remainder of the regime, great. That seems implausible. It is far more likely that we are now in an undeclared and unprovoked war with Venezuela that has little support from the American public, and that an invasion will be necessary to bring about real regime change. Will Trump take the risk of creating his own version of Iraq, or will be make the deal I suggested in my prediction with the new head thug in Venezuela? TBD.

It was always going to be difficult to persuade the electorate to do anything meaningful about climate change when the impacts were exclusively in the future even though science could easily predict them. After all, how many people would choose pain now over slightly less pain later?

But the effects of climate change are here and now. Furthermore, they are not limited to a handful of states. Insurance rates are soaring all over the country. And yet, the public is mostly unmoved, and the Democrats have been forced to retreat to a posture of “realism” that promotes renewable energy along with the slightly less dirty kind.

Any progress we make at this point will be dependent on the market and the rest of the world. It is stupid and shameful, and hardly an advertisement for our political system, which values the interests of a handful of miners over hundreds of thousands of solar panel installers.

Trump apparently threatened to use force against the Iranian regime if it shoots protesters in a post on Lying Psycho this morning. No one in Iran is going to take this threat seriously, but it will help the regime make the case that the protesters are just tools of the Great Satan.

My question is, will Ayatollah Khamenei make the same promise to protect the First Amendment rights of American protesters when Trump decides to shoot them?

We won’t know if the conservative majority on the Supreme Court intends to use its bogus “major questions” doctrine against the far right until later this year. We already know, however, that the combination of “major questions” and the filibuster will make it impossible for the Democrats to govern effectively if they win the 2028 election. How can they deal with this problem?

They have two choices: abolish the filibuster and engage in the constant process of legislating that SCOTUS appears to have in mind; or either ignore unfavorable Court decisions or limit them to the actual parties to the case. Trump may well set the precedent for the latter option if he loses the tariff case and is ordered to provide refunds.

This will be one of the biggest issues in the 2028 primaries. After Trump and “major questions,” there can be no going back to the McConnell version of the Constitution, regardless of the risks.

With apologies to Julia Ward Howe.

BATTLE HYMN OF THE TRUMPSTERS

Our eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Don.

The wokesters really hate him ’cause he says their right is wrong.

He dominates the country, and the immigrants are gone.

Our cause is marching on!

______________

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Our cause is marching on!

It’s customary to enter the new year with lots of optimism. Unfortunately, I can’t; things will either stay more or less the same or get significantly worse. Trump isn’t going to stop being an authoritarian or give up his reactionary policies. The GOP optimists could be right about the economy, but the balance of probabilities is against them. That means stagnation is the best case scenario.

Much depends on the outcome of the election. If the GOP outperforms current expectations, the following two years may be reasonably peaceful. If the Democrats win a clear victory, we are undoubtedly looking at two years of constitutional crises; the question then is whether Trump will retaliate by declaring an emergency, sending the military to run the blue states, and clamping down on dissent in the MSM and on the internet. I’ll address those issues if and when they arise.

The unknowns are pretty well known for this year. Here are my predictions:

1. VENEZUELA: We know for certain that Trump will continue to ratchet up the pressure on Maduro. The uncertainties are whether it will work, and if it doesn’t, whether Trump will launch an invasion over the objections of a majority of Americans. My best guesses are no and no; Trump makes a face-saving deal with Maduro over oil, drugs, and immigration and backs down.
2. CHINA: Trump clearly wants to make a sphere of influence deal with Xi which includes trade concessions on the part of the Chinese. Will it happen in 2026? I don’t think the Chinese are ready for it yet. I suspect it will happen in 2027.
3. MIDDLE EAST: Will there be another war with Iran, and will Trump join in this time? Yes, Bibi will launch more airstrikes, and no, Trump won’t join in. In the meantime, Phase 2 in Gaza goes nowhere fast, and while there is plenty of anger within Iran, there is no revolution–yet.
4. UKRAINE: The slog will continue until Trump either forces the Ukrainians to give in by siding openly and permanently with Russia or makes Putin moderate his demands by supplying more and better weapons. I predict that he will do neither and that the current trajectory of the war will consequently remain unchanged in 2026.
5. EUROPE: It is safe to assume that Trump will keep insulting the EU, which will do nothing meaningful in response.