Cromwell

Around noon yesterday, the NYT ran a headline saying that Trump and Hegseth would make a big announcement in Florida in the next few hours. I assumed it involved an attack on Venezuela. As it turned out, the administration is going to build a new class of “battleship” (battleships are sitting ducks, so we don’t build them anymore) to be named after Trump. Crisis averted, at least for now.

This episode reminded me, however, that the very first task of the next Democratic president should be to sign an executive order removing Trump’s name from everything (and I mean everything) he puts it on during his second term.

In case you were wondering, getting rid of all of that gold is Job 2.

It would be difficult to find a more annoying Trump lackey than Elise Stefanik. Her departure from the NY governor race and planned retirement from Congress consequently leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I will be happy to see her go; on the other, a crushing Hochul victory over her would have given me great satisfaction.

Trump will probably give her a job as a consolation prize. No one licks his boots more abjectly than she does, so she has certainly earned some compensation.

Members of the far right, following J.D. Vance, love to talk about “heritage Americans.” What does that term mean?

The definition appears to have two different threads. The first one is ethnic and cultural; it applies only to WASPs. The second is historical; only Americans whose ancestors immigrated during or before the Civil War need apply.

The distinction is extremely important. I’m of sturdy WASP stock, but my ancestors didn’t arrive in America until the turn of the 20th century. By the cultural test, I am a heritage American, but by the historical standard, I am not.

So which is it? If the historical test is the one that matters, virtually all black Americans, and a fair number of Hispanics, qualify. Is that what Vance really means? And why is an American whose ancestors immigrated after the Civil War better than a virtually identical one with American roots that are only 100 years old?

This will make for a fascinating discussion when Vance tries to persuade hundreds of millions of what he thinks are second-class citizens (including his wife, of course) to vote for him in 2028.

(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 to enjoy time with their families. I totally get that. I have a special needs child who may not have long to live. I need to spend as much time with him as I can while he’s still here.

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!

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

C: You sound just like Donald Trump, Sir.

S: Don’t mention that man’s name to me.

C: Why not? You said you voted for him last year.

S: I only voted for him because the alternative was higher taxes and regulations. That man is wrecking my business with his tariffs. He wants to be the CEO of the entire country, but he couldn’t even run a casino. He keeps ordering me to suck up to him. The only good thing he’s done is deregulate AI.

C: Why are you so bullish on AI?

S: Because it will cut my costs dramatically. I won’t have to hire drones like you who are always making demands on me.

C: But what about Christmas?

S: AI hasn’t progressed to the point where I can get rid of the likes of you. At some point, it will, but for now, I have to keep you people reasonably happy. Otherwise, you’ll vote for some stupid liberal in 2028, and I’ll really be screwed.

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!

Vivek Ramaswamy has had enough. He sees an avalanche of racist abuse on social media, and he doesn’t like it. It’s time for the GOP to excommunicate the racist haters, he says in a column in the NYT; they’re as bad as the crazy wokesters on the left. And let’s get rid of the idea of “heritage Americans” once and for all; if you’re a responsible citizen who pays his taxes and agrees with democracy and the rule of law, it doesn’t matter when your family moved here.

Ramaswamy never mentions the name of J.D. Vance, but this is a frontal assault on the VP, who is more closely associated with the concept of “heritage Americans” than any other politician. He does, however, refer to Vance’s Indian wife with approval.

The NYT column raises two questions for me. First of all, it suggests that Ramaswamy will be vulnerable to a challenge from the reactionary right during the campaign in Ohio. Second, I can’t help wondering if Vance’s marriage can survive years of this kind of attack; his family is a living repudiation of his ideology and his ambitions. Wouldn’t divorcing your Indian wife in the name of party unity be the ultimate right-wing Sister Souljah moment?

Trump’s plan for the economy in his first term was a variant of Abenomics–stimulate the economy with large tax cuts, keep interest rates low, and see what happens. Up until 2020, it worked pretty well. Unemployment was low, the markets rose, and there was no meaningful inflation. Life was good.

Biden tried the same trick under different conditions, and it failed. Broken supply chains led to inflation, and large doses of federal spending made it worse, although American growth figures were the envy of the world. The deficit and interest rates went up. The public was unhappy.

Trump 2.0 is an attempt to recreate 2019 in a changed world in which inflation is a real threat and the deficit and interest rates are significant constraints. His tariffs and deportations, which were not a major factor in 2019, are only making matters worse. Growth is down, unemployment is up, and inflation hasn’t budged. It doesn’t look like an A++++ economy to me or anyone west of Washington.

As I’ve noted before, there was a split in the Nazi movement between the leaders of the SA, who took the “socialism” in National Socialism seriously, and more establishment figures in the business world and the regular military. Hitler ultimately chose to support the establishment figures, and the SA was humbled.

Trump doesn’t have an SA; his ties to the right-wing militias never developed to that level. He does, however, have plenty of followers on the internet who have had some success keeping potential opponents in line with threats of violence. He also has a Secretary of Defense who appears to want to turn America’s regular military into a right-wing militia usable for partisan purposes in our cities. If Hegseth succeeds in changing the culture of our military, Trump won’t need an SA, let alone a Night of the Long Knives.

J: Alex, you look very serious. What are you thinking about?

H: Religion and its role in American society and government.

J: That seems out of character for you. As I recall, when you were asked why God wasn’t referenced in the Constitution, you said “We forgot.”

H: I did say that. In retrospect, I wish I had taken the issue more seriously.

J: What do you mean by that?

H: I’ll start by saying what I don’t mean. For all of our disagreements, I was completely with you on whether government was created to serve man and not God. I had no more use for the divine right of kings than you did.

J: I’m glad we agreed on something. I never doubted you on that point.

H: And I never wanted to oppress anyone based on their religious views. Ultimate truth is not self-evident, and pure thought, unrelated to action, is not something that can or should be regulated.

J: Still on board with you.

H: Finally, in light of the vast proliferation of religious sects in America, it was probably unrealistic to think that we could ever establish a state religion here.

J: Why do I have the feeling that there is a “but” coming next?

H: Because there is, for two reasons. First, some institution in every society has to identify opinions that are so clearly indecent, they cannot be held without consequences. Second, strongly held and extreme religious opinions tend to get acted upon, with very negative consequences for the public. Just look at Germany in the 1520s and the UK in the Oliver Cromwell era, to say nothing of people like Osama bin Laden in a more modern context.

J: What would you suggest in a perfect world?

H: A very broad state church with minimal requirements would be best. One that excluded only the most extreme opinions, supported the legitimacy of the government, and left private worship alone.

J: That sounds like something out of the Roman Republic, or a Charles II wish list.

H: There’s probably some validity to those analogies. Just to be clear, I don’t think that is a realistic possibility in America today. You asked about a perfect world, and I answered your question.

J: What you really want is a gatekeeper other than the government to define and prohibit deviant political views. I agree, but I think public opinion as a whole is adequate to address your concerns.

H: For a long time, I would have agreed with that. In today’s world, I don’t. Have you seen what people are saying on the internet these days? Technology killed the gatekeepers, and the quality of public discourse has turned to sludge.

J: I won’t argue with that. But as long as it’s just talk, it doesn’t need to be controlled. Government has adequate resources to deal with it when it turns into action.

H: By and large, the job of enforcing decency on the internet has been delegated to right-wing and left-wing mobs. Do you think Trump will accept that as the ultimate solution, or will he go full authoritarian and use the government to crack down on free speech?

J: He’s an angry old man. I don’t see him tolerating dissent much longer. He won’t have any support in Congress for a new Sedition Act, but he’ll use his emergency authority for the same purpose and dare anyone to do anything about it.

H: I hope you’re wrong, but I’m afraid you’re right.

The startling level of price increases in higher education is due primarily to a change in business models that started, fortunately, after I left school. It consists of the following: schools treat their students as consumers and build resort-level amenities; affluent parents–frequently foreigners–consequently agree to pay exorbitant prices for the experience; and the additional funds from the higher tuition are recycled to increase aid for the less affluent. Does it work?

There are two problems with the model as of today. First, the prevailing public narrative includes the price increases, but not the added financial aid for the less affluent. That has to change. Second, the model probably works for elite schools because the sky-high tuition reflects the improved economic prospects for their students, but not for schools designed to train Americans of average ability for run-of-the-mill jobs. In that case, the higher tuition does not make economic sense for either the service provider or the consumer.

The bottom line here is that state schools should avoid using the model. That is primarily the responsibility of both blue and red state governments.

While Trump is doing his best to deregulate AI, DeSantis is pushing legislation in Florida that would put a number of new limits on it. What conclusions should we draw from this conflict?

First, DeSantis is running for president in 2028, and he sees AI regulation as a wedge issue that could separate J.D. from the base. He’s probably right. Second, since Trump is far more popular than the governor in Florida, and is less of a lame duck, do not expect the Florida Legislature to defy his wishes on this point.

With the possible exception of the use of weight loss drugs, I’m not aware of any evidence showing that Americans are much more enthusiastic consumers of drugs and medical services than Europeans. In addition, many of the issues with the workings of the market I have described in previous posts are inherent in all systems. So why is America such an outlier as to the cost of medical treatment?

The GOP would have you believe the problem is bureaucracy and middlemen; what we really need to do, they say, is to return to a less regulated market and rely on the good sense and bargaining power of consumers. The market in medicine, however, is characterized by monopolies and a complete disparity of knowledge and bargaining power between producers and consumers; the GOP approach will consequently force less affluent patients to do without essential services. The real difference between Americans and Europeans is the willingness of the latter to use their regulatory power against the providers to keep costs down. In America, that runs into the opposition of extremely influential vested interests. Nothing will really change in this country until a stronger effort is made to overcome that opposition.

If you think things are bad today, you should have been around in the 1970s. Double-digit inflation, Watergate, the fall of South Vietnam, the Iran hostages, plenty of political violence, rising drug use, increased unemployment and crime–everything was far worse then than it is now.

The difference, of course, is that Reagan was an optimist, not a grim authoritarian who saw the world in zero-sum terms and wanted to wage war on half of America. There is little reason to believe that history will repeat itself on this point.

Soaring child care costs are an enormous problem for families with working mothers. The Democrats have proposed to resolve the issue by throwing federal money at it, which will probably only make things worse in the long run. Is there a better way?

We know for a fact that the workers in this field are not overpaid, so the solution probably involves some measure of deregulation. You would think this approach would be right up the GOP’s alley, but the party has shown no particular interest in it. Why?

Because the Republican Party believes in the Godly Society. It doesn’t want working mothers. There is no other rationale that makes sense.

And in the meantime, Trump is busy deporting the kind of people who provide care for the elderly and children, which will only exacerbate the problem.

About a year ago, I identified three very different right-wing visions for America: the Godly Society; the New Confederacy; and the Techno-Aristocracy. How are those dreams faring under Trump 2.0?

The Godly Society is foundering. Trump has delivered on his promises by jacking up tariffs and instituting mass deportations, but manufacturing employment is actually down. There is no sign that America is about to enter into an industrial renaissance which will permit women to leave the workforce, get married, and have lots of babies. It’s not going to happen.

The New Confederacy had one huge symbolic victory–red state troops are being deployed in blue states, ostensibly to reduce crime, but really to show that Trump and his reactionary base are in charge. Other than that, however, there has been no meaningful progress on a “national divorce.”

The techno-aristocrats, however, are doing very well for themselves. Trump has treated them as national champions and has thrown lots of energy into deregulating AI. Share prices and investment are soaring. The concerns of the base about the impacts of AI on the workforce are being ignore. Will that last, particularly if things go awry? TBD.

There are a myriad of reasons for the rising cost of housing. They include: increased costs for materials; a shortage of construction workers, which started with the Great Recession and has never been resolved; overly restrictive state and local building regulations; demands from younger buyers for homes with far better amenities than their parents enjoyed; and a lack of innovation relating to building practices, probably exacerbated by unions. Trump’s tariffs, deportations, and efforts to protect single-family zoning districts are only making things worse. What could the Democrats offer in 2028?

Reversing Trump’s policies would be a good start. They could offer to provide financial assistance for worker training programs and better local zoning practices. On the rest of it, the federal government can’t do much except elevate the issues in the consciousness of the public and hope the private sector responds accordingly.