Cromwell

When Trump, as he often does, makes mutually exclusive promises to different groups, which ones should we believe? Here is my analysis:

1. Promises that operate in the financial or psychological best interests of the narcissist-in-chief can be trusted.
2. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.
3. If there is a history of Trump being talked out of something by the adults in the room, don’t rely on the adults prevailing in the second Trump term, because they won’t be there.

With these principles in mind, what can we expect from Trump 2.0? Here’s a partial list:

1. Tariffs, and lots of them. Trump has always been a mercantilist.
2. Tax cuts and deregulation for business. Trump is a faux populist, not a real one.
3. Lots of talk about nuclear war, but no real action. Trump’s one virtue is that he isn’t a warmonger–he just plays one on TV.
4. Plenty of petty corruption, just as before.
5. An end to as many federal programs as he can find addressing climate change.
6. No federal abortion ban, but plenty of regulatory actions behind the scenes to please the anti-abortion base.
7. An end to America’s support of Ukraine, with lots of kind words for Putin.
8. More attempts to manage trade with China in exchange for a free hand with Taiwan.
9. A reduced commitment to NATO.
10. Expensive and draconian measures to reduce immigration, followed by a refusal to follow court orders overturning them.

America had two different foreign policies during the Trump years. The one run by the foreign policy apparatus was conventional and Republican, while Trump himself embraced dictators, downplayed human rights, offended allies, mused openly about nuclear war, and focused to an absurd degree on trade deficits. Mike Pompeo handled the dissonance by pretending it didn’t exist and by stomping out of the room when reporters insisted it did. Can we expect more of the same in a second Trump term?

Yes, because the confusion keeps Trump’s options open, which is almost always one of his principal objectives. My prediction comes with a caveat, however; it will be much more difficult to recruit prominent people to serve as Trump’s straight man this time around. The adults in the room will be gone, because everyone saw what happened to them in the first term. Who will want to play the good cop for our friends?

Trump, of course, claims to be the retribution for the oppressed white American Christians who are constantly mocked by the coastal elites. His rhetoric is angry and reactionary. At the same time, he is apparently telling potential donors that he will govern as a traditional Republican, albeit as one who is a bit rough with his mouth. This means there will be tax cuts and deregulation galore for business interests; his faux economic populism is just a distraction to keep the base on side.

This kind of dishonest dualism on social and economic issues is a feature, not a bug, of Trumpism. You could argue that it is a cynical but effective way of bridging the gap between the PBP and Reactionary factions of the Republican Party. It also keeps Trump’s options open as long as possible, which is another feature of his form of government.

The obvious question, of course, is what should America believe? In my next post on this subject, I will discuss how Trumpian dualism also pervades his foreign policy style. In the concluding post, I will tell you what you can trust, what you can’t, and why.

Rural resentment of American urban elites is a theme that goes back to Jefferson’s time. The most dramatic example of it, of course, was the Populist movement of the 1890s. Is it in any way comparable to what we see today?

No. William Jennings Bryan was genuinely interested in improving the lot of rural residents. He had a policy platform that was designed to do exactly that. He never preached resentment as an end in itself.

Trump, on the other hand, has no plan to improve the lives of the people he claims to represent. Fortunately for him, they don’t seem to mind; for example, his China tariffs resulted in retaliation and cost American farmers one of their best markets, but they support him anyway, because he is their retribution.

We know what the prosecution’s story is in the Trump trial, but what will the defense say? As far as I can tell, it has two wildly different potential defenses:

1. The case against Trump is a pack of lies from beginning to end. There was no affair and no payment of hush money. Trump is as innocent as the driven snow.
2. There was an affair and a payment of hush money, but it wasn’t motivated by any political concerns. As a result, there is no legal tie to a felony, and even if the records were falsified, it was only a misdemeanor.

My guess is that Trump will prefer #1, which is consistent with his public comments on the matter, but his lawyers will prefer #2. Who will win this battle? We’ll see.

Ross Douthat observes that, while issues pertaining to Trump’s self-regard are non-negotiable, virtually all matters of policy are. He thinks this kind of cynical populism is a strength of the man on golf cart and advises Biden to follow his example. Is he right about both Trump and Biden?

He is absolutely correct about Trump, with one exception; an extensive record shows that the man on golf cart is genuinely wedded to his reactionary ideas about mercantilism and returning America to the economy of the 1950s. As to Biden, let’s consider Douthat’s examples of how the current president could triangulate successfully:

1. On Gaza, Douthat admits that Biden has taken an intermediate path and received credit for it from no one. In reality, Biden is not triangulating on Gaza; he is taking a consistent, principled, well-defined path towards ultimately improving the Middle East that has not really borne fruit yet.
2. On immigration, Biden has clearly moved to the center over the last few months, as Douthat would wish. That process has just taken too long for some members of the center. One of the factors to consider here, however, is that the left has had success litigating immigration cases against the administration based on the theory that even Biden’s supposedly lenient policies have been indistinguishable from Trump’s. That would come as news to most people, but it’s true; in that sense, Biden has been triangulating from his first day in office.
3. On abortion, a large majority of the public supports Biden and opposes the right. Why would he move off a popular position?
4. On electric cars, the latest rules have slowed down the pace of the transition somewhat. Should Biden trumpet that as a wise concession to public opinion at the risk of offending the blue base? I have my doubts.

The bottom line here is that Biden was bound to do plenty of triangulation the minute the blue team lost control of the House of Representatives. He’s already doing that. To go much beyond what he is already doing would offend the blue base without winning over many swing voters, most of whom will be making a decision based on Trump’s behavior and the state of the economy in any event.

The GOP declined to adopt a new platform in 2020, deciding instead to stick with the language approved four years earlier. In essence, the party was saying that it would provide unconditional support to anything Donald Trump decided to do in his second term. It no longer had any principles other than standing with Trump.

If you want to attach a date to the MAGA takeover of the GOP, that would be a logical choice. Will the party do the same thing in 2024? Well, why not? Trump always likes to keep his policy options open as long as possible, and who at the convention is going to stand in his way?

The Iranians launched a large-scale drone and missile attack on Israel from bases inside its boundaries yesterday. The attack was a complete failure. Virtually all of the objects were intercepted by the Israelis and their allies, little damage was done, and nobody died.

Having essentially gotten away with their targeted attack on Revolutionary Guard leaders, and exposed Iran’s inability to breach their defenses, will the Israelis count their winnings, or retaliate in kind? Isn’t one full-scale war in Gaza enough?

You would certainly think so. My only concern is that Bibi might see an opportunity to lure America into a direct conflict with Iran that neither Biden nor the Iranians desire by attacking the Iranian heartland. That possibility cannot be completely discounted.

C: The Trump hush money trial starts tomorrow. As of today, Trump has a very slim lead over Biden in most reputable polls. How are the two of you feeling?

M: Depressed.

S: Optimistic, but worried.

C: Let’s start with you, Mark. Why are you depressed?

M: Look at the choice I’m facing! Biden wants to increase my taxes. Trump won’t do that, but his tariffs and his hatred of electric cars are going to do a lot of damage to my business. The car companies have already made the leap to electric. America can’t possibly build millions of gas-powered cars every year when the rest of the world is building electric. It doesn’t make any sense.

S: Sure it does! When we make America great again, it won’t need any help! We can just tell the rest of the world where to go!

C: Will you be voting for Biden or Trump? Or maybe a third party?

M: I haven’t decided. It depends on what happens between now and November. The third parties don’t have anything to offer me. One thing is for sure–my wife is going to vote for Biden.

S: I always said you were a RINO. Now you’re proving it.

M: If you define the Republican Party as a group that gives unconditional support to Trump to do whatever he wants instead of an ideological group with a consistent set of beliefs, I guess I am a RINO.

C: Will the outcome of the trial influence your decision?

M: Probably. I’m not comfortable voting for a felon.

S: The trial is rigged. Trump can’t get a fair hearing from those Marxists in Manhattan. I don’t care how it turns out–he’s my man.

C: So why are you worried?

S: Because of people like Mark. If Trump is convicted, it could cost him the election. The polls are already too close as it is.

C: What do you think of Trump’s latest flip-flop on abortion?

S: I’m totally OK with it. Anything that wins him the election is OK with me.

C: I thought you said you were pro-life.

S: I’m totally pro-Trump. He needs power to get what he wants. If being a little soft on abortion gets him there, fine. He can always change his mind after the election.

C: Who should be his running mate?

S: I don’t care. Anyone who can get him more votes in November. I’ll support Don Jr. in 2028, so it’s not like I’m committing to the VP choice as the next party leader.

C: I’ll see you both in a few months.

You can’t out-crazy Donald Trump. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. Since RFK is increasingly sounding like a Trumpian conspiracy theorist, Trump won’t have to pay him any mind. He’s not going to lose any portion of his base, let alone votes from Nikki Haley supporters, to a second-rate version of himself.

Biden is in a different position; he could lose votes to ignorant progressives who assume that RFK is one of them simply by virtue of his name. He should be running commercials on the web reminding the blue base that RFK is an anti-vaxxer who supports the January 6 rioters and Israel’s actions in Gaza. That should do the trick.

In the long run, I think Biden will have a greater problem with young progressives voting for West or Stein. They represent a more ideologically coherent threat to him than RFK does.

Two genuinely pro-life NYT commentators, David French and Ross Douthat, are appalled at the GOP’s reaction to the Alabama and Arizona legal decisions. The only conclusion they can draw is that the GOP isn’t truly pro-life. For that, they largely blame Trump. Are they right?

The real test for a truly pro-life person is whether he is willing to support substantial enhancements to the welfare state at his expense to benefit the women who are compelled to give birth in exchange for giving up the right to abortion. Does that sound like a majority of the GOP to you? Can you ever think of a time when it did?

Not in my lifetime, that’s for sure. Trump may bear some responsibility for this, just as he can be blamed for making Christianity less attractive to young people, but the genuinely pro-life cohort of the GOP has always been a small minority. The vast majority of reactionaries are about power and pain, not love.

To what extent does RFK represent a threat to Biden? And who are his potential voters? Let’s break it down.

There are two fairly large groups of undecided voters: centrist, establishment Republicans who supported Nikki Haley over Trump; and young progressives who are angry with Biden over Gaza. RFK won’t get any support from either of these groups. His arguments about vaccines, Ukraine, and January 6 are consistent with Trump’s positions, not Haley’s, and he hasn’t said anything critical about Israel and the war.

He’s not going to take the conspiracy theorist vote away from Trump. When it is all said and done, regardless of what the polls say today, he’s not going to be a major factor in this race unless it is so excruciatingly close that he can play Ralph Nader to Biden’s Al Gore.

Netanyahu long since lost Thomas Friedman, whose love for the best side of Israel knows no bounds. Now he has lost the extremely hawkish Bret Stephens, and even Trump is making noises that don’t sound too great. Is this a warning sign?

You bet it is. If the Israeli government can’t even keep foreigners who almost always give it unqualified support on its side, it can’t expect any help from anyone outside its boundaries while the war drags on. It will be overstretched and completely isolated–all for the privilege of killing thousands of Palestinian noncombatants who aren’t responsible for the war.

The people who watched the total eclipse, regardless of ideology or religious beliefs, found it utterly exhilarating. Why?

For the same reason we all stare out to sea when we’re at the beach; we’re wired to believe in an awesome (in the correct meaning of the word), benevolent God, because we know only too well that we’re likely to screw things up on our own.

In the classic movie “Key Largo,” a character played by Humphrey Bogart confronts a gangster named Johnny Rocco. The Bogart character asks the question, “What does Rocco want?’ He answers the question himself–“More!” Rocco agrees.

If you were to ask the same question of Trump, which is completely appropriate, given his ethics and enthusiasm for gangsters, what would he say? The answer would be “Power.” Having power proves that he is the man, and everyone else isn’t. It gives him the ability to exact revenge on his enemies. It forces people who think they are better than he is to suck up to him. It makes him the center of attention at all times. It proves that those people in Manhattan who were contemptuous of him all of those years were wrong.

It has everything to do with his own emotional needs, and nothing to do with the best interests of the country, which are of no concern to him whatsoever.