The Stupidity Inside The Stupidity

 We may or may not start a trade war tomorrow. We shall see whichever way the wind blows between Trump's ears. His ostensible reason for launching this trade war and why it's at least somewhat popular among people who don't really understand how international trade works (which, to be fair, is really complicated) is that we need more manufacturing jobs in the US.

As Paul Krugman explains, manufacturing jobs have been declining for reasons that have only partly to do with things like the lack of tariffs or the strength of the dollar. As industries become more technologically advanced, fewer workers produce more goods. He makes the apt comparison to farming. We have a tiny fraction of the workforce in agriculture, but we still produce a lot of food. 

It would be nice if journalists stopped trying to sanewash this nonsense and realize that Trump wants a trade war because he's a belligerent asshole, not because he wants to "make America great again."

Hate The Player AND The Game

 This profile of Steven Cheung feels like one of those texts where you see so much more clearly after having read it. Cheung is Trump's chief online attack dog. He's the source of much of the vile and disgusting combative statements issuing from the White House.

Yet, as you read it, you learn that - in person - Cheung is a nice, soft spoken guy. People like him. People including, it seems, media figures whom he will be kind to in person but savage on social media. There is an element of Trumpism that is all this kayfabe. Cheung was out of MMA if it wasn't obvious enough for you. It's all a big joke, don't you know.

This split between the person and the persona is how you can get media types to buy into the fact that the Trump White House doesn't really mean all the things they say. They are just pushing to see what they get away with. We have Trump's normally laughable suggestion that he might seek a third term. At the moment, I do think he's just pulling our collective legs and watching people freak out online.

In time, however, I think he will come to believe it. Just like how he was originally joking about Canada becoming the 51st state, but now seems to really, really hate Canada.

There are cartoonishly evil people in the White House like Stephen Miller, but Cheung is allowed to be someone else, someone not an outright Nazi, because he's polite in person.

You want to know what the DC press corpse is helping to usher us down the road to fascism? It's because they think they're in on the joke, and it's not a laughing matter at all.

Vibes Aren't New

 One of the things I see a lot on social media are people talking about film superlatives, but they've clearly never seen a film before 2000. That's because so many of the commenters are youngish and they lack a certain historical perspective. When discussing why Harris lost, there are a lot of attempts at explaining things that really lack that historical breath of vision.

This occurred to me as I read Krugman's argument that "MAGA is bad for business." The empirical argument is pretty sound that not only are Trump's economic policies bad in and of themselves, but the way he's going about these bad policies is perhaps even worse. The tariff yo-yo is not only bad because large tariffs are a bad policy, but his constant on again, off again modus operandi means that any purported benefits of tariffs - the onshoring of manufacturing - are not likely to happen, because you can't plan a month into the future, much less three years.

However, as Krugman notes in passing, Republicans are generally considered better for business than Democrats, despite all the economic data clearly showing the opposite. There are three pillars of the GOP's electoral appeal: they are good for business, they are serious about national defense and they are tough on crime. Only the latter is true, and that's largely a product of being horrible on civil liberties.

All of these are vibes that go back well before Trump. They have some small basis in Reagan's deregulation and benefitting from the post-inflationary boom of the '80s and his massive defense build up. However, they persist today despite copious evidence to the contrary.

Are Republicans better on national defense? I'd argue that Iraq was the greatest unforced error in the history of American defense policy, even more so than Vietnam. Vietnam was at least the illogical extension of a logical policy - containment. Iraq was just a massive own goal. Now we have an administration actively working to destroy the alliances that we created to make us and the world safer, while the morons in charge create massive gaping holes in our operational security. The use of Signal for the Houthi strikes was not the first or last time they have violated secure communications.

Are Republicans better for the economy? The massive deregulation and tax cuts led to the grueling recession of 1991-3. Bush explicitly created the deregulation and loose money policies that led to 2008. Now Trump - who has inherited two booming economies from Obama and Biden respectively - is actively working to destroy that.

In other words, the actual Republican policies, when looked at objectively, are contrary to how people think about Republicans. Yet these vibes persist.

From a political point of view, this clearly matters. Yglesias' blind faith that people actual look at policies is present in his defense of Obama's record with the banking industry after 2008. He argues, somewhat persuasively, that Obama tried to bring a few cases against bankers, but they were all moot because the law doesn't really allow easy prosecutions of white collar crime. Therefore, passing Dodd-Frank was a way bigger deal than symbolic prosecutions that would have failed.

The problem is that we did bail out the banks and not the people who lost their homes - often through no fault of their own. Banks were paying out bonuses by Christmas of 2009, while average Americans struggled to stay afloat. Whatever the merits of the policy - and saving the banking system was essential - the vibes of "Democrats only care about the banks" was at the heart of the Tea Party revolt.

When people talk about Harris' loss, it is difficult to avoid coming back to "vibes." Objectively, the Biden performance on the economy was the best in the world. You can measure it compared to other countries and he did the best he could with the facts on the ground. However, it was not the actual inflation rate that had people upset, but the fact that prices had risen (bad) and they weren't going to go back down (good actually, deflation is bad) and the increase they had seen in their wages was not Biden's work (arguable). Inflation, as an economic condition, was largely over by late 2023, with some exceptions. The vibes surrounding inflation were, however, still bad.

None of this is say there couldn't have been better choices made by Democrats from 2021-2024. Certainly Merrick Garland's slow rolling of Trump's prosecutions looks like a massive, perhaps fatal mistake. The Harris campaign probably should never have stopped talking about Project 2025.

Still, vibes persist beyond the ability of evidence to make a dent in them. There is no media strategy like going on Joe Rogan or social media outreach than can easily divest people of their prior beliefs.

This is why embracing FAFO is still the Democrats best bet. Trump and Republicans are fucking things up. The Signal scandal has left a mark, and we are seeing massive anger at townhalls directed at Republicans who have abandoned their oaths of office to supplicate before Trump.

Again, I don't like "rooting" for hard times, but only hard times will drive a wedge between people and their a priori beliefs; beliefs that have no roots in reality. 

Tesla Stock

 I skimmed this Motley Fool article about the potential for Tesla's stock price to rebound. The basic argument seems to be that, historically, stocks that fluctuate like this usually bounce back.

Now, I'm NOT a finance guy. Stonk picking ain't my thing. However, I've spent some time studying economics from a non-mathematics perspective; I look at the people and ideas that underlay all the very fancy math that finance people use. I'm not a quant, I'm a qualitative guy.

So, with that caveat out of the way let's look at Tesla. The Price/Earnings ratio basically compares how much revenue the company has to the price of its stock. As I write this, it's Price/Earnings ratio is around 130. Generally speaking, the P/E ration is preferred to be about 20-25. If it's under that, chances are that stock is undervalued. If it's above that, the stock is either in a bubble or - sometimes - it represents hopes for future growth.

It's not really unusual for a tech company to have some insane P/E. Apple's P/E is around 34, I don't think that means Apple is overvalued. Even a high growth, speculative stock like Nvidia is at 37. How in the holy hell can you look at 130 and think the stock is anything but wildly overvalued.

I concede that looking at P/E is very old fashioned, and you would have missed out on some real buy low/sell high opportunities if that's all you looked at. On the other hand, it's very real.

So at one point, Tesla was selling for 488 and now it's at 260, AND STILL THE P/E IS TOO HIGH. The assumption has always been that Musk some sort of Tony Stark Supergenius who is going to write the future, like Henry Ford and Edison/Tesla combined. It is difficult to look at DOGE and conclude that this guy has a handle on competence. How do you look at him swinging a chainsaw around at CPAC and think, "yeah, this guy is the future."

The real question is not why the price of Tesla has fallen. In my mind, the question is why hasn't in fallen further?

This is yet another way in which Musk overlaps with Trump. He is likely another example of the Golden Age of Fraud we are in. My question is to what degree are foreign entities, but especially governments, propping up this stock? His sales are tanking. He's clearly distracted. He's likely addicted to ketamine. He's showing his ass daily. 

Tesla has always made somewhat crappy cars with really awesome batteries. The assumption was that Tesla would replace legacy automakers. Instead, we are seeing legacy automakers begin to capture more and more of the EV market. Tesla as a brand is increasingly associated with a guy who makes Nazi salutes while campaigning for AfD. 

The stock price should be lower.

But, if I'm China, wouldn't it be worth propping up the stock in return for whatever information Musk could give us? For access to Starlink? This is Musk the Overmighty Subject being a massive security risk. 

Here's the other thing. Musk's purchase of Twitter was kind of pegged to the health of that Tesla stock. He financed so much of the purchase off the back of the elevated price of Tesla that if it dips too low, all of that debt - which was backed by Tesla stock - becomes a massive problem. At this point, who are what is propping up Tesla stock is preventing banks from doing something they REALLY don't want to do, which is repossess Twitter, which is itself a largely money-losing venture.

Here's my concern and my question. Tesla's stock price is absolutely critical for the rest of Musk's empire, but especially Twitter, which is massively important for his fragile little ego. Musk has carved a really important role for himself with Starlink and SpaceX that has dire implications for national security. Is anyone looking at foreign governments striking deals with Musk to prop up his overvalued stock price?

Since this is Trumpistan and the Golden Age of Fraud, I have to assume that no one is. However, markets ultimately figure this stuff out.

Make It Make Sense

 Yesterday, RFK Jr's brain worm forced out the head of vaccine regulations, Dr. Peter Marks, in favor of someone who was is not a doctor and was in fact cited for practicing medicine without a license. David Geier is, of course, a vaccine "skeptic" who thinks vaccines cause autism. 

Vaccines do not cause autism.

Meanwhile, Trump is rolling back regulations with regards to mercury pollution. Mercury - like most heavy metals - is a neurotoxin. It absolutely causes birth defects and brain damage. 

So...fuck I can't believe this is real life...Trump is firing a doctor to put in place a charlatan to push the lie that vaccines hurt your kids, while simultaneously allowing industry to pump an extremely poisonous chemical into the air and water.

Again, if his sole purpose was destroy America, what would he be doing differently?

Government By Cable News Host

 Trump has appointed something like 23 Fox News personalities to his government. I did not know that there were 23 Fox News personalities in total.

However, when you think it about, this all makes sense. The egregious incompetence of a Pete Hegseth makes perfect sense, if your main job qualification is to go in the TeeVee and rant about the libtards so that the senile old fool watching from the Oval Office can get the slightest tingle in his withered loins.

The whole cruelty is the point schtick is about what plays on Fox. Fox is about punching down, about "no war but the culture war." The performative nature of so many of these illegal acts is partly about Project 2025's "move fast, break things" tactics, but it's also about playing well on Fox. Picking fights with Canada and Denmark/Greenland is about the bullying climate of NewsCorp. 

If you can shitpost or play "right wing grievance MadLibs" then you, too, could be the Undersecretary of State for South Asia or something similar.

Why are they stupid? Why are they cruel? Because it's all about how it plays on a network dedicated to stupid cruelty. 

(Somewhat off topic, this Atlantic piece on the Murdochs is just...woof. What a moral sewer. Still, hopefully Rupert dies soon.)

The Breaking Point For The Deep State

 The reckless abandonment of America's allies and global role in promoting peace and security has got to have people within America's national security apparatus freaking right the hell out. As I said this morning, we are in the grips of a culture war jihad that is taking a scorched earth approach to all of our institutions. The idea being that they can recreate America along their largely theological lines - with theology mixed in with oligarchy and white supremacy. It's all one big stew.

If Hollywood was writing this script, there would be a cabal of CIA, FBI and military figures plotting to overthrow Trump. The precedent would be the middle to late Roman Empire, when the Praetorian Guards would periodically kill the empire and replace him with someone else (who they might later kill). The fundamental check on the emperor's power were the swords of his personal bodyguards.

I should stop to say that this is really, really unhealthy for a Republic (not that Rome was a republic at that point).

However, Elon Musk is not elected to anything, and as Josh Marshall has been explaining, Musk has historical parallels with the "overmighty subjects" of the late medieval, early modern period in Europe. These were nobles whose power and wealth rivaled the monarchs, the sovereign. The rise of the modern state in Europe was partly the eradication of these overly powerful challenges to the sovereign. 

Musk's control of Starlink, of SpaceX, of Twitter and his attempts to buy elections outright have put him beyond the reach of laws. Trump, too, has largely exceeded the reach of laws at this point, but Trump - inexplicably - is still in the mid to high 40s in job approval. Musk, however, is increasingly unpopular, and he lacks the cultish hold over tens of millions of Americans. 

What's more, we have a situation where Musk (apparently) went to the Pentagon for a briefing on US war plans for China - all while having meetings with people like Putin and Xi. 

The Signal scandal would pale in comparison to the revelation that Musk is trading American secrets for access to Chinese goods and markets. The Signal scandal also makes clear that normal means of holding people accountable are defunct for the moment. At what point would the so-called Deep State feel compelled to move against this "overmighty subject?"

No War But The Culture War

 Early in Trump 1.0, Adam Serwer offered a pithy line that still encapsulates a lot of Trumpism: The cruelty is the point. Now, as we find ourselves between the hammer and anvil of Trump 2.0, Jon Chait offers a new maxim: There is no war but the culture war.

Ostensibly keen observers of American politics are baffled by the chaos of Trump's tariff zig zags, the lawlessness of his Executive Orders and his contempt for the global order that America has established and preserved for almost a century.

Richardson today offers a nice summary of WHY the priority of Trump - and especially the Brown Shirts that surround him - is to dismantle everything good that America does. She returns, as one should, to Project 2025. (The news media's failure to adequately cover this was perhaps its biggest failure of the last election.)

It's actually JD Vance who offers up the rationale for this assault on basic decency.

In place of those structures, today’s MAGA leaders intend to create their own new institutions, shaped by their own people, whose ideological purity trumps their abilities. As Vice President J.D. Vance explained in a 2021 interview, he and his ilk believe that American “conservatives…have lost every major powerful institution in the country, except for maybe churches and religious institutions, which of course are weaker now than they’ve ever been. We’ve lost big business. We’ve lost finance. We’ve lost the culture. We’ve lost the academy. And if we’re going to actually really effect real change in the country, it will require us completely replacing the existing ruling class with another ruling class…. I don’t think there’s sort of a compromise that we’re going to come with the people who currently actually control the country. Unless we overthrow them in some way, we’re going to keep losing.” “We really need to be really ruthless when it comes to the exercise of power,” he said.

This is the crux of the matter. These are not "conservatives"; they are counterrevolutionary extremists. The point of Project 2025 and everything they have done so far is to overwhelm opposition and create so many targets for this outrage that they overwhelm everyone and everything.

This is not popular. Not even with Trump voters. There's a sense that they might be getting just how unpopular they are. They've withdrawn Elise Stefanik's nomination to be UN Ambassador. They did so because they legitimately fear losing the special election in Florida to replace Mike "Wanna Join My Secret Group Chat" Waltz. Trump won that district by 30 points. That would mean Stefanik's district is up for grabs. 

Losing the House this early would be extremely damaging to their plans. However, as Josh Marshall has often noted, the federal government is only one locus of power. The states are another, the people a third. There is no guarantee that the American people will continue to let the republic end to placate a handful of religious extremists. 

My dad and I would argue politics all the time. He was a Southern Democrat who moved right, and he would complain about why the Democrats were so focused on culture war stuff like abortion and gay rights. That sort of person isn't going to like the same dynamic from Republicans.

Yes, the Signal Scandal is bad and has legs. However, the markets are freaking out and Americans are waking to the fact that Trump lied to them again. Trump is not an engine of American Greatness; he is a chaos agent acting to destroy everything that is even close to something that might be considered "the other side" of the culture war.

Who's In Charge?

 Woven through some of the commentary about the Signal Scandal are questions about what the hell Trump was up to during all this. This was a principals discussion about using military force. People were going to and did die. Maybe Trump should get off the golf course and social media and be present for this. Instead, we have Pee Wee German (Stephen Miller) saying that "As I heard it, the president was clear: green light." 

When he's been asked about the whole thing, his responses are the usual meandering Trump bullshit word salad. It feels almost like this has been baked into coverage: Trump will say some stupid shit and the press will interpret it like Roman Augers looking at bird entrails. Meanwhile, four US soldiers on a training mission in Lithuania have gone missing, and Trump was apparently not even briefed on it.

Concerns about Joe Biden's age were not meritless. In particular, Biden's preexisting difficulty with a speech impediment was clearly worsening as he aged. Trump's preexisting difficulty with being a dumb stupid fucking donkey has also clearly worsened as he's aged.

Luckily, the hamfisted ways that these absolute bandbags have handled this scandal has allowed the press to keep the story alive. A fundamental hack that Trump has enjoyed over the media is that they are always hungry for new "content" and he could be relied upon for a new scandalous act every 24 hours. A tough thing to do for Trump's opponents have been to focus on just one thing and hammer that. Now, we have the original scandal, the lying about it before Congress and now legitimate questions about who is actually running things at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Right on cue, Trump has resurrect his tariff two-step and also decided to fire a a bunch of people at HHS and, oh, what the hell, let's gut FEMA. That's the Trump churn we knew was coming. However, the stupidity and obvious venality of the scandal and the cover-up has insured that it's staying at the worst "meme-worthy."  (Oh, the memes. The glorious memes.)

A competent administration run by competent people and helmed by a competent president would've handled the original story this way: "This is obviously of great concern to the president, and we will get to the bottom of it." Then you fire a few people and convene a Blue Ribbon panel on communications security that largely confirms existing protocols (that Waltz and Hegseth violated). 

Instead, the fact is that authoritarianism is brittle means that they cannot allow ANY weakness to be shown. If they were to throw Waltz overboard, that would just mean that Dear Leader made a mistake and that can't even be conceived of. So, we get the recurring Feats of Strength that dig deeper and deeper into obvious lying that even some people on Faux (some) can't stomach. 

Meanwhile, Democrats need to amplify the aspect of this scandal that calls into question who is actually in charge at the White House. Trump is a doddering old fool, but he's also extremely prickly. I confess, I thought he would have a falling out with Musk already, because they are both show boating narcissists. It is in the national interest that Pete Hegseth not be Defense Secretary. Getting Trump to fire him should be a priority and suggesting that Hegseth is doing dumb shit behind his back could be the lever to get Trump to actually fire the guy. 

Attack Trump's pride.

It does very much seem like Trump is completely checked out. He won and avoided prison, but he's never had any real appetite for doing the hard work of governing and, especially, understanding stuff that you need to understand to govern. 

They basically prop him at a desk with a bunch of poorly crafted Executive Orders to sign in much the same way you give a toddler and iPad to play with so they will be quiet and let you finish your work destroying the American State.

"Trump is a senile old man who doesn't know that his Cabinet is off planning wars on private apps, because he's a senile old man who is old and senile." His reaction will, of course, to be to overreact. 

Change the game. We aren't winning the current one. 

Rumblings

 It's a small thing, but might oaks from small acorns grow. Yesterday, a Democrat won a state Senate seat in Pennsylvania. Trump won that district by 15%.

We have some special elections coming up. These are mostly in deep Red districts, but not so deep red that they can necessarily cover up a 15% swing. Winning either or ideally both of the special elections will wake up quite a few Republicans in the House and maybe even the Senate that while they have been worried about keeping their jobs safe from primary challenges, they should also worry about losing the general.

Stupid AND Evil

 Krugman lays out how both the Signal Scandal and Musk's War on Social Security demonstrate how the Trump Administration is both stupid AND evil.

I would take it one step further. Stupid people with a will to power almost always ARE evil. It's not that they're both, it's that one is mutually dependent on the other. Yes, inviting a journalist into your secret war text group is unfathomably dumb. Yes, this was done to evade Federal law regarding government records, which they clearly do so often that no one questions it, even when discussing military planning. Yes, they were contemptuous of Europe, which is both stupid and evil.

Fascism and most forms of authoritarianism require idiocy. One marker for something that you know will be both stupid and evil is if some Republican starts talking about "common sense." What common sense means is that there is a complicated issue that they really don't understand, so they dumb it down for themselves and their constituents and then come up with a dumb "solution" that will likely make things worse. Take tariffs as just one example.

Hopefully in the long run, the stupid is more powerful than the evil.

UPDATE: So, the Evil Idiots decided on the "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" crisis management strategy, basically going to Capitol Hill and to Faux News and lying their asses off about whether there was classified information in the Signal chat.

Goldberg, of course, had receipts. Coming back to the Stupid or Evil idea, they had to know that Goldberg had these screenshots. Or maybe they didn't think it through that far? Or maybe they know that this evil, corrupted regime will not hold any loyalists accountable.

Do Not Blow This

 The inclusion of journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in the illegal use of Signal to plan attacks on Yemen is a really big deal, both politically and substantively. Going to the front page of the Times, and it's not the lead story. Same with the Post. That doesn't mean the story doesn't have legs, as I imagine lots of people are trying to figure out what the fuck happened.

Here's the thing. This is the most important moment of the Trump presidency for Democrats so far. Bigger than the Continuing Resolution disaster. 

The lead story at the Times is the impact of Trump's lawless immigration program on colleges. At the Post, it's the breakdown in Social Security. Those are legit stories.

The Yemen group chat, though, is about national security. It's about the combination of lawlessness and just rank incompetence of the Trump team. It's pretty easy to understand; it's immediate. 

Democrats need to focus. They can't chase every Trump scandal. He's going to say outrageous shit over the next week, like a squid squirting ink to cover his distress. Focus on these facts:

- Pete Hegseth is out of his depth,
- Trump is out of the loop.
- These are criminal acts.
- National security is serious business.

Authoritarians have to constantly project strength. This makes them look foolish. What's more, look at the lead story in the Post, about DOGE's attack on basic Social Security services. 

This is the moment Democrats can define Trumpism as basically buffoonish and dangerous incompetence. On some level, the Democrats have to convince Americans that expert governance is important. Events like this - combined with the coming economic dislocations - are able to create a narrative that will be reinforced by event after event.

But Democrats can't blow this. They have to keep this story alive. Republicans are really good at hammering a nontroversy until it becomes an actual controversy. People are comparing this to Hillary's email server, but Democrats need to think about Benghazi, a regrettable incident that Republicans kept hammering until it became a scandal simply by repetition. This scandal is real, and yes there are many more happening all around us, but make this everything. Get Waltz or Hegseth fired. 

Democratic voters are desperate for Democratic politicians to fight back. This is that moment.

Morons

 This story by Jeffrey Goldberg has to be read to be believed. Basically, he got invited by accident to be part of the planning of strike on Houthi militias. The chat group included the National Security Advisor, the Vice President, Secretaries of Defense and State and prominent members of the White House staff. Somehow no one noticed that a journalist was in that virtual space with them.

Look, the Houthis do not have the capacity to hack these systems. Russia, China and possibly Iran do. You simply cannot carry on classified discussions on cell phones, even on an encrypted app.

What's more there are a staggering number of crimes committed by doing this. Multiple crimes along multiple avenues of wrong doing.

It goes without saying that there will be no legal accountability.

Not Really A Plan

 Paul Krugman lays out the central conundrum facing Democrats, specifically with regards to how to fight back against Trump's predation of the social safety net, notably Social Security. The "tear-your-hair-out" moment for Democrats is that this plutocratic, failson slumlord has managed to position himself as the champion of working Americans. 

The "Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party has claimed this is because Democrats abandoned the working class for siren song of neoliberal economics (mostly this criticism is applied to Bill Clinton). This argument founders on the reality that Clinton expanded healthcare to children (CHIPS) and then Obama created the largest expansion in wealth redistribution since LBJ. Then, Trump tried to kill ACA, but everyone seems to have forgotten that this is who he is. 

The reality seems, to me, to be that Democrats embrace of LGBTQ rights and immigration reform (rather than immigration demagoguery) has made them seem like the party of, as James Carville put it, faculty lounge politics. Then again, LGBTQ rights are, in fact, important. "Elites" - at least culturally - have indeed become part of the base of the Democratic party; college educated professionals are a huge part of their voting bloc. 

This has not led to Democratic abandonment of income redistribution. What you have on the Republican side is a weird wave of support, with people making between $50,000 and $100,000 seeming to support Trump and billionaires bankrolling him and staffing his administration. The result is that the "working people's champion" has people like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying that his mom wouldn't miss her Social Security check. Yes, that's probably true, since her son is a literal billionaire.

Both Krugman and Richardson note that Republicans used to believe in some form of social safety net - though I think Teddy Roosevelt's embrace of universal health care probably came AFTER his presidency when he ran as the Progressive Party candidate in 1912. Eisenhower and Nixon's support for some redistribution and government oversight of the economy was a nod to political reality. Reagan overturned all that, even if even Reagan wasn't going to go after Social Security. It was the rise of the Gingrich Republican who wanted to overturn the New Deal that led to Bush trying to privatize Social Security and Trump trying to end the ACA.

All of this is a long way of saying the Republican Party is still the party of Newt Gingrich's extremism; they still want to gut the social safety net. However, precisely because they have tried and failed to do so has created in tens of millions of voters the idea that nothing bad will happen to MY government programs, just those that go to the "undeserving". 

This is how you get the incredibly frustrating dynamic of this past election. Trumpists write Project 2025 which is as radical a document as I can remember in 125 years of American history, maybe all the way back to the Civil War. Project 2025 - when explained to voters - is really, really unpopular, so Trump says he has no idea what Project 2025 is and the press seems to believe him. (No, I don't know why Democrats stopped hammering him on the contents of Project 2025; that was the biggest tactical misstep, arguably even bigger than Biden not stepping aside.)

Donald Trump is a compulsive liar. He has absolutely zero regard for the truth. Yet, somehow, his agenda - which was right there in black and white - was not scrutinized by voters. It was precisely those low information voters who returned him to the White House.

The post-election postmortems all seem to avoid this point. Trump's agenda was unpopular, yet voters were more or less not exposed to it or they simply believed his lies about Project 2025 and his promise to be a "dictator on day one." There is not a suite of policy papers that will undo this dynamic. People aren't flocking to Bernie and AOC's rallies because they believe in the Green New Deal, they are going because those two are actually "fighting" in visible ways. 

This is why right now the central tentpole of Democratic strategy seems to be to get out of the way of Trump's mistakes. Let him and Musk gut the government. Especially if it's Social Security being gutted, that could have a major impact on actual voters. 

The reality is that the only lever Democrats have right now is that what Trump is doing is illegal and - as Jamelle Bouie so concisely puts it - anti-constitutional and the courts largely agree. They can do nothing in the Senate and less than nothing in the House.  In fundamental ways, they are waiting for Trump and Musk to crash the government in ways that even those low information voters can't ignore. Trump thinks he can re-write reality, but he can't. The worry has to be that Trump somehow makes things bad but not so bad that you get a massive revolt from the electorate in 2026. 

That, unfortunately, is not a proactive plan. The Bernie/AOC rallies and the empty chair townhalls are a nice performative step, but they don't yet reach the level of a plan.

As Maine Goes

 Richardson makes the connection between Maine governor, Janet Mills, and the Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, who stood up to Joe McCarthy.  New England women are not prone to taking much shit, a tradition that stretches back to Anne Hutchinson. Mills refuses to abandon civil rights protections for transgender students in the face of Trump's bullying. She famously said to his face, "See you in court."

Trump's track record in court isn't good, and Mills is an attorney whereas Trump is a reality TV star turned wannabe dictator. The real significance is that Mills called Trump on his bullshit to his face. Of course, Trump has threatened and started to anti-constitutionally withhold federal monies from Maine. That question - whether a president can withhold money - should probably be fast-tracked to Supreme Court. If the Assembly of Religious Experts decides that his Highness Donald Trump can target states that have disagreements with him, then the experiment in federalism is over and we should just go ahead and break up the country. It would be that serious.

Trump, as we well know by now, is a bully. Bullies cannot survive defeats. Dominance is their primary currency, and when they lose that, they lose their hold over people. Maine - in fact I would hope the rest of New England would follow suit - needs to take the lead in determining whether we have a federal republic or a monarchy. 

Reality Bites

 Richardson references something that has been kicking around my brain a lot since the initiation of Project 2025 on January 20th. Back around 2004, there was a famous article interviewing a Bush Administration figure talking about the "reality based community" whereas they were "creating their own reality" through their actions.

I don't think we need a primer on how that ended in Iraq and Afghanistan. How that ended in the housing market.

The obvious parallel is the speed and mania of the assault on the basic functions of government. Beginning from a place of deep misunderstanding - namely that you can run government "like a business" - the Muskenjugend have been taking Milei's chainsaw to really important government agencies without first coming to understand what the do or how they do it. 

"Efficiency gains" is corporate-speak for laying people off, but that only works if you are providing a consumer good and automation has reached a point where it can replace workers. The problem is that government is not providing consumer goods, they are providing public goods. There might be, ideally, a moment if we survive all this where some of the technological efficiencies allow for smoother operations. However, government agencies have access to all sorts of sensitive information, and information can be hacked, especially if you are "moving fast and breaking things".

Trump and Musk - two megalomaniacs - believe that they can create their own reality. Ironically, Trump himself is a captive of the reality beamed into his tiny little brain by Faux and NewsMax. Trump believes that because he says something, usually something stupid like the Canada or Greenland bullshit, and then it gets repeated by the craven courtiers on the TeeVee, then suddenly "people are saying" and it becomes real. The feedback loop is insane here.

Reality, though, tends to get the last word. The Bush Administration was unable to create its own reality. In fact, early in 2005, Bush - with his mandate - attempted a privatization scheme with Social Security. His popularity plummeted. That August, Katrina hit New Orleans and his popularity never recovered. In 2006, Democrats won the House. In 2008, Obama won the highest share of the popular votes since 1988 (52.9%).

Someone on the Socials asked what it would take for Trumpists to abandon him. Most commenters said nothing could shake his grip on them, and for the true members of Cult 45, that's true. The people who cross state lines to go to one of his rallies are never abandoning him. But there are tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, because they were Republicans or because they wanted to "run America like a business" or they hated whatever woke is. 

If - or rather when - reality has its say, that contract could shatter. If Social Security checks don't come out (and some Trump officials seem to be laying the groundwork for that eventuality) that will be a huge event in the lives of a lot of people who voted for Trump, because they wanted a business man in charge. When school districts run out of money because the Department of Education is dysfunctional, that will have an impact on people.

Hubris is the sin of excessive pride, arrogant belief in one's equality with the gods. I can't think of a better word to describe those running our government right now. 

Today In Non-Malign Developments

 Paul Krugman has been in Brussels and suggests that Europe might be awakening as a Superpower. The basic dynamic for decades has been that the US was a Hyperpower, while China and the EU were "poles" around which global dynamics revolved. Russia, India and to a lesser degree countries like Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Turkey and Nigeria all put themselves forward as regional powers. 

Trump's foreign policy is an abdication of 80 years of American leadership on global security. His "thinking" is that America is getting ripped off by insuring global security, whereas every other president since FDR has seen this as both an American value and something that accrues to the long term benefit of the US.

From 1945-1993, the world was seen as a bipolar world in international relations. The two poles were Washington and Moscow. For a while, theorists spoke of a unipolar world after the fall of the Soviet Union. After the US shit the bed in Iraq combined with the rise of China led many to suggest a new pole was emerging in Beijing. If, indeed, Europe rises as a pole, that has ramifications for the world. Hopefully, after Trump, the US and EU can go back to being allies, though they will be understandably wary of relying on us.

A unified Europe capable of sticking up for itself might actually be a good and healthy development in the near term, as a counterweight to Trump and Putin's malevolence.

Popcorn Time

 Wyoming Congresswoman and George Santos Cosplay Enthusiast, Harriet Hageman, managed to beat Liz Cheney, a scion of Wyoming's most important politician, Torture Maven, Dick Cheney. She held a townhall - which is really not a thing Republicans are doing anymore - and was basically booed off stage.

I continue to vacillate over Democratic capitulation on the shutdown vote. I still can't quite see how shutting down the government stops Elon Musk from shutting down the government.

However, it really does seem that Musk and DOGE are increasingly becoming a millstone around the necks of the GOP. A state like Wyoming prides itself on its rugged frontier individualism, but the reality is their economy is propped up by all sorts of Federal spending, including agricultural subsidies, national parks and mineral exploitation of federal lands. The budgetary slasher film that Musk is filming in DC is going to gut places like Wyoming, if it's allowed to continue.

In 2009, the Obama folks thought they had a handle on the recovery from the 2008 crash, but they spent too little and focused too much on aiding institutions and not individuals. The resulting anger was the Tea Party that swamped the elections of 2010. At the time, I think I was dismissive of the protests and anger that showed up at townhalls from 2009-2010. Like Republicans today, I assumed it was people already hostile to Democrats.

We can't forget that the Trumpenreich is full of both terrible and incompetent people. Both of which should come and bite them in the ass, if we can have free and fair elections in 2026.

Full Of Sound And Fury And Signifying Nothing

 There's an interesting idea embedded in this post that a lot of what the Trumpists are doing is just creating the illusion of doing. Apparently Trump signed another one of his Executive Orders to close the Department of Education, but it stands almost zero chance of passing even the most cursory of judicial scrutiny, and even most Republicans in Congress are going to be reluctant to tank that much spending in their home states and districts. The point is not that they are playing twelve-dimensional chess, but that they are basically "playing government on the TeeVee."

These are malevolent people, and the bloated orange carcass at the head of the organizational chart is as malevolent as any of them, but they have energy and he is old and feeble. The minions know though that Trump gets 99% of his information from the TeeVee, because he can't or won't read. He's monumentally uncurious about being accurate, he just wants his prejudices to be comforted. His lack of interest in actual facts makes Dubya Bush look like Archimedes by comparison. His economic "policies" - for instance - are supported by arguments that should not be taken serious as economic arguments. 

If you want to stay in the good graces of the Mad King, then you do stuff on the TeeVee that will look good to him. If NewsMax and Faux say we are eliminating the Department of Education via Executive Order, that THAT'S what important - even more so than actually closing it down. In fact, when the Courts rule that, no, the President cannot eliminate a Congressionally created department, that just gives Trump someone else to fulminate against. 

Richardson lays out the newest babbling nonsense on Faux News about impeaching judges that disagree with Trump. Her point is that Trump's lawyers at the DOJ are basically arguing that Trump is a King who can determine who to deport without a hearing. This contradicts the law. Again, as Bouie described it, this is not unconstitutional, it is anti-constitutional. This is obviously incredibly disturbing on its face, but it's also, ya know, bullshit. Even John Roberts is pushing back in the press, which is a very rare thing for a Chief Justice to do.

However, the argument that Trump is a King is not really intended to be legally correct; it obviously isn't. It will, however, play very well with on Trump's TeeVee, as he gobble down hamburdlers and falls asleep in the blue light of Faux and NewsMax's endless stream of gibbering rage monkeys.

Here's the catch: If this is all for the TeeVee, then we actually aren't in as much danger as we think. Trump's anti-constitutional power grab will fail, because it has all the heft and intellectual power of a 4Chan post. We cannot, however, assume that it will fail. We have to act as if these really are serious people making serious arguments, because if we are wrong about it being just MacBeth's "sound and fury" then we are talking about the end of the United States as we know it. 

Another Weak Leg Of The Table

 We know about Trump's erratic and reckless trade wars and the impact that they are having on the economy. We know foreign money is fleeing the US. We know that as deportations escalate, that, too, will have an impact on the economy. Firing hundreds of thousands of federal workers and choking off federal dollars entering the economy will hurt a lot. The Atlanta Fed is predicting a sizable contraction in GDP. 

All of this may or may not lead to a recession. However, if things start to go south, there is a time bomb ticking in the heart of the American economy: credit card debt.

Annie Lowery lays out the two-tiered credit card system. Even when our belts were tightest, we would sacrifice savings rather than carry credit card debt. It's incredibly destructive. That means we have a great credit score and just upgrade one of our credit cards for more rewards - rewards that are paid for by fees and interest on borrowers who DON'T pay off their cards.

Meanwhile, credit card debt - much of which was assumed during the post-pandemic inflationary boom - is exploding. AOC and and others are proposing capping credit card interest rates at 10%, and you can understand why. However, doing that will dramatically restrict who can buy on credit. When that happens, people will spend less. A lot less. 

For all the talk of the stock market crash of 1929, it was massive levels of credit buying that dried up when financial firms got pinched by the market crash. The massive waves of bank failures was the accelerant that turned a market correction into the Great Depression. Easy credit creates the bubble, Hayek was right about that. It created both a consumer and stock bubble in the 1920s, it created the housing bubble of 2008. 

Has it created a similar bubble? Probably not exactly, however I think - uninformed opinion here - that we are an economy that is being subsidized by consumer debt, and if that collapses, the whole economy could spin quickly into the gutter.

The Courts Are Holding

Arguably the most disturbing aspect of the Trump Restoration has been the complete and utter disregard for the red letter of the law. They aren't pushing against the laws and looking for weaknesses, cracks that they might exploit. They are just openly and brazenly breaking the law.

One current issue surrounds the deportation of Venezuelans in contradiction of a direct orders from a federal judge. John Roberts has actually begun to push back against the attacks on the Judiciary as a whole that are coming from the White House. While Trump's brazen lawlessness is largely a product of his own creation, maybe he's beginning to realize what this could mean for the judiciary as a whole. He might not give a shit about you and me, but he cares about his own clout. 

Meanwhile, Musk's feeding of the service branch of Social Security into the wood chipper is also pretty lawless. The difference here is that defending Venezuelans - some of whom might actually BE gang members - is about defending an abstraction. Defending Social Security is an immediate priority for people who depend on Social Security. Once we get more cases of lawful recipients being denied coverage, both the courts of law and public opinion should come down firmly against Musk - as indeed they already have on multiple occasions.

We can expect no help from Congress - and this has nothing to do with Chuck Schumer. Democrats have almost zero ability to stop the Executive Branch from being a shitshow of cruelty, hatred and incompetence. However, repeated violations of the courts only plays to Trump's feral base of haters. I'm not expecting Susan Collins to grow a spine, but at some point, even Republican Senators have to worry about Trump openly violating court orders.

This is it, this is the crux of the future of American democracy. Trump is behaving unlawfully, unconstitutionally. At some point, he and Musk are going to break something really important, perhaps Social Security, perhaps education...something; they can't help themselves. The Courts are telling him to stop.

Will he? And if he doesn't, what happens then, both in Congress and on American streets?

UPDATE: Jamelle Bouie calls Trump's actions not unconstitutional but anti-constitutional. 

They Can't Scrub The Truth

 Richardson lays out efforts by the Trumpists to somehow erase non-White history from things like the Defense Department website. Reading it, I'm struck by how profoundly dumb those efforts are. While Trump has largely cowed some college administrators - looking at you, Columbia - there are few avenues for controlling the "Academy." I don't see an Orwellian future for intellectual life, providing we have free and fair elections in 2026. As Marshall notes, authoritarianism is hard in a federal system, with so many separate nodes of sovereignty.

Let's take the economy as an example of separate nodes of sovereignty. As Krugman catalogs, consumer confidence is cratering, even with general mixed economic news. What's more, Bessent and other administration figures are trying to prime the public for a recession. That's...odd. One interesting perhaps leading indicator is a steep collapse in people eating in restaurants. That suggests a pulling back on "luxury" spending in favor of personal autonomy.

If that's what's happening - broad scale pulling back from spending in an unstable economic environment - then we should expect to see a sort of self-fulfilling cycle of reduced spending>reduced hiring/investment>reduced spending>reduced hiring/investment. That's the cycle of a recession. If people aren't spending because they think the economy is bad, then the economy will be bad. (On a separate note, AOC is working on capping credit card interest rates at 10%. That strikes me as either a really bad idea because it will help tip us into a collapse in demand that will lead to a recession or a really good idea because it will help tip us into a collapse in demand that will lead to a recession.)

I get why people get fired up by Trump's efforts to expunge the military service of people who aren't white guys. It's outrageous. It's supposed to be outrageous. It's the actions - ignoring court orders, illegally impounding funds, DOGE's evisceration of agencies without legal cover - that are bad. I think there's always been an assumption that Trump is completely immune to the laws of political gravity. That's the lesson of 2016 and 2024. It is not the lesson of 2018, 2020 or 2022. 

The reason Bessent is priming people for a recession is that Trump is going to cause a recession. They think they can control that narrative and shape the facts. I have very serious doubts about that.

The Constitutional Crisis Is Upon Us

 I have been insistent that you should not let yourself get outraged by the various deranged utterances of the Trumpists. They say outlandish things as a form of "flooding the zone", as a way to distract and diffuse outrage. The chirping blond harridans at the press briefings are designed in a lab to focus outrage on words and not deeds.

The deeds, however, are getting worse and worse. Yes, the Muskenjugend rampaging through the government have been and will continue to be awful. However, it sure looks like the Administration has crossed yet another Rubicon.

As Richardson catalogs, Trump has used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport a host of people without due process. The Alien Enemies Act was used to suppress French citizens from dragging America into the war surrounding the French Revolution, at a time when a weak America was striving to maintain its neutrality. It has been used in times of war, notably the War of 1812 and both World Wars. Trump is arguing that migration constitutes an invasion equal to a war and therefore he is justified in deporting people without a hearing.

So far, this is just Trump's extremist immigration ideas (many of which, sadly, enjoy broad support in the abstract). What follows is the crux of the crisis. A Federal judge issued a restraining order on the deportation of five Venezuelans who may or may not be in gangs. We have no way of knowing. Basically, the judge was saying that there had to be a deportation hearing.

The Trump Administration violated the restraining order.

This has always been the critical fear. At this moment, the one thin strand protecting the American Republic is the court system. Congress is useless, and not because Chuck Schumer is feckless, but because Republicans control it. It is only the courts that can protect the laws that protect Americans and even non-Americans from tyrannical actions. 

The problem that has always been lurking is that the Courts rely on the Executive to carry out their orders. If a court issues an order, the Executive can appeal it, but they cannot simply ignore it. 

That's where we are now.

The Trumpists are banking on the unsympathetic nature of gang members turning this issue to their advantage. That's not a terrible wager, as people are stridently anti-crime at the moment, even as crime has fallen back to pre-pandemic levels. 

However, given the free ranging incompetence of the Trump Administration, I have to wonder if they won't be deporting anyone with the same name as a gang member. One Julio Arias is a gang member, the other is a line cook; the line cook gets deported. This is precisely the point of the hearings. 

I despair of the American people really seeing the importance of Constitutional principles. These are the people who elected a felon to enforce our laws.  Maybe people will get upset about the lawless deportations, the violations of court orders. But sooner or later, a gang member from Latin America will kill someone and we will the Laken Riley kabuki all over again.

As of today, Trump stands in violation of the very first indictment in the Declaration of Independence against King George III: "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

Oligarchy, Monopoly and Trumpism

 Josh Marshall makes a case that the most important sub rosa fight against Trump is being waged on behalf of Perkins Coie, a prestigious law firm that largely represents the Democratic Party. Marshall's argument is that in a liberal democracy, there are separate nodes of power - political, cultural, economic - that prevent authoritarianism. The Republican Party has embraced Orbanism and are explicitly using his playbook to end substantive democracy in America. Law firms like Perkins Coie are one of those independent nodes of power that can resist the ongoing assault on American democratic governance. 

What becomes clear to people in positions of authority is that if you take on Trump directly, you will suffer potentially devastating consequences. We are seeing this dynamic play out at universities in general and Columbia in particular. 

Obviously, there are extreme pressures on media outlets, whether they are owned by billionaires like Jeff Bezos or by massive corporations like Disney. This brings me to my point.

Trump's full frontal assault on American democracy depends on neutralizing those nodes of independence, like Big Law Firms or Big News. My one hope for America is that federalism will ultimately be where Trumpism dies. However, Trump and the GOP's efforts to destroy the independent nodes of power is greatly facilitated by the presence of oligarchy and monopoly. Why does the guy who owns Amazon own the Washington Post? Why is the LA Times owned by a medical industry billionaire? Why is Twitter owned by That Fucking Guy?

Even a company like Disney that perhaps falls short of monopoly but owns a massive share of the entertainment industry has to worry about, say, antitrust prosecution by Trumpists if ABC runs a negative story. CNN is run by Warner Brothers/Discovery, which owns HBO, TNT and DC. All of these megamedia corporations are chokepoints that Trump can throttle by the narrow neck of their ownership. 

Sadly, I have my doubts that Trump's illegal and unconstitutional destructive rampage through our democratic institutions will be enough, by itself, to turn large majorities of Americans against him. Majorities, yes. I think he likely loses an election today against Josh Shapiro or JB Pritzker by large margins. The lack of accurate memory by Americans is a huge reason why he was elected, as was the broad anti-incumbent sentiment, and people are remembering how nuts Trumpistan is. But we need more than 52% of people to vote for a Democrat in 2028. We need 55-60% of the public to openly rebel at the ballot box. 

Serbia is trying the Hungary Playbook and people are taking to the streets. At some point, mass protests have to return to the US. Ultimately, though, it will be winning Congress that saves us.

If we can't, because there isn't a critical mass of Americans who abhor authoritarianism, then maybe disunion really is on the table. 

I for one would welcome being Canadian.

"Primary Them"

 I go back and forth on yesterday's cave in by some Senate Democrats. This was maybe their one chance for months to have a real impact on what Musk and Trump are doing. On the other hand, I can't help but think a shut down would have played into the hands of these nihilists trying to gut the Federal workforce. I just don't think there was a clear win here, no matter what they did. I do think a shut down would've been bad in ways we aren't fully imagining; still, I get that people want to see Democrats "do something.'

What I don't need to hear anymore of is "primary them."

As Dana Houle points out, quite a few of the Dems who voted yes on cloture are likely retiring anyway. He lists Peters and Shaheen, with Durbin likely to follow. Schumer, too. As both Durbin and Schumer are over 75, I think they deserve a primary anyways. We just lost Raul Grijalva to cancer at 77, which he knew he had when he ran for re-election in November. That's a critical vote from a safe D district that we've lost until there can be a special election in September.

The one performative exception is Fetterman, who answers the question "What if Kyrsten Sinema looked like Shrek?" Fetterman, however, comes from a state that voted for Trump twice, a state that kicked out Bob Casey this November. He's not quite Joe Manchin in his ability to win in a deeply Red state, but I'd be wary about enforcing some sort of immediate purity tests. I don't think the CR had a clear solution. 

Democrats currently have one electoral advantage: high socioeconomic and educational voters - people who vote in every election - are in their corner. They should do well in off-year and special elections. Where we are getting creamed is with Ariana Grande voters. People who follow politics in roughly the way I follow the NBA. I know when the season is; I know that there are a few players who are pretty good. Steph Curry still good? Someone named Embiid? Luka something? Dunno, the playoffs are in like month or so? I think?

Winning those voters is hard when you are the party of boring governmental competence. Some of those voters are, I think, waking up to the chaos that Trump and the wholly captured GOP are introducing into our nation. However, winning requires having the biggest tent possible. That's why I was never on board with hating Manchin. He was the difference between compromise legislation passing and nothing passing. It's also why I hated Joe Lieberman, because he was representing a solidly Democratic state and voting like a Republican on important issues.

So, please! I get the anger and frustration because people thought that there was a secret trick to use the CR against Trump. The trick was only if the House was unable to pass a "cleanish" CR. Turns out, to my surprise, they were. That was the ballgame. 

Democrats are almost entirely powerless at the national level. That sucks and is bad for the country. Turning our fire on each other is not the way to rectify that.

The Cave In

 Senate Democrats are going to cave and let the GOP continuing resolution proceed through cloture. That was their one veto point, their one piece of leverage. 

And they gave it up.

Josh Marshall lays out why this is terrible.

I wonder though.

My worry was not that a shutdown would hurt Democrats, and I don't think that's what Schumer and others were arguing. Republicans get tarred by shutdowns.

My worry was that a shutdown would be a DOGE-accelerant. They are actively trying to eviscerate the government's functional ability to do anything. Why would they fear a shutdown? My hope, even assumption, was that a CR couldn't get through this House. It did. I think at that point, the game was up. 

What I do feel strongly about, like incandescently strongly about, is that the fucking Democrats better stop asking me for my fucking money if this is the best resistance that they can muster. I'm skeptical of the "DO SOMETHING" voices, but this was honestly a chance to do "something".

Also, Chuck Schumer needs to be replaced, should Democrats win a majority in 2026. 

UPDATE: Martin Longman makes a lot of sense. There was no winning move here.

Non Compos Mentis

 Via Richardson, I give you an unedited transcript of Trump off script, talking about his potentially disastrous decision to release water from California reservoirs for no discernible reason, except perhaps to demonstrate that his stupid, wrong headed idea was in fact awesome. Just read this:

 "I broke into Los Angeles, can you believe it, I had to break in,” he said. “I invaded Los Angeles and we opened up the water, and the water is now flowing down. They have so much water they don't know what to do. They were sending it out to the Pacific for environmental reasons. Ok, can you believe it? And in the meantime they lost 25,000 houses. They lost, and nobody’s ever seen anything like it. But, uh, we have the water—uh, love to show you a picture, you’ve seen the picture—the water’s flowing through the half-pipes, you know, we have the big half-pipes that go down. Used to, twenty-five years ago they used to have plenty of water but they turned it off for, again, for environmental reasons. Well, I turned it on for environmental reasons and also fire reasons but, ah, and I’ve been asking them to do that during my first term, I said do it, I didn’t think anything like could happen like this, but they didn’t have enough water. Now the farmers are going to have water for their land and the water’s in there, but I actually had to break in. We broke in to do it because, ah, we had people who were afraid to give water. In particular they were trying to protect a certain little fish. And I said, how do you protect a fish if you don’t have water? They didn’t have any water so they’re protecting a fish. And that didn’t work out too well by the way….”

If there is a host of culprits for why we have to endure four years of this deeply evil moron polluting our national politics and degrading our national reputation, the complicity of the press has to be up there. James Fallows has noted that Trump's verbal dexterity has declined noticeably from his first term. He is 78 years old, three years younger than Biden was when we all determined he was too old to be president. 

Trump's blathering nonsense makes sense, if you consider that he is a man who was never really smart and suffering from cognitive decline. Trump was shipped off to the New York Military Academy in the early '60s. Reasons for sending the child of a wealthy NY developer off to boarding school can vary, but at the time, there was no understanding of learning disabilities, and kids who might be struggle in school could be sent away to a place like NYMA for "discipline" and to avoid everyone seeing that Donald isn't that "smart." 

People with learning disabilities can be quite intelligent. Woodrow Wilson and John Irving were both incredibly dyslexic, yet both became quite talented writers. Some forms of ADHD can really nurture creativity. However, learning differences require different educational strategies and disciplines. Typical schooling won't work. 

Trump - and other like him - was able to use a different work around: money. Money meant he never had to grind his way through the reading. My dad was dyslexic, and as a lawyer, he had to read a LOT. As a result, he often came home late at night and worked late at home. He had to put additional hours in because that was what his ADHD/dyslexia required.

Trump just doesn't read. Like, he famously doesn't read. I'm not saying he CAN'T read, but he's not the guy to expose himself to ridicule for being "stupid" because he struggles to read quickly. 

Reading is a critical practice to hold off cognitive decline.

Trump is not a bright man. He is not a kind man. Some respond to setbacks or disabilities with increased empathy. FDR and polio for instance. Trump was never that guy. Shielded from adversity by his wealth, he never stretched his smooth brain beyond the NY real estate world; a world of corruption, bullying and shady dealings. That, in the end, is all he knows. Incurious about the world, he takes his own priors as the gospel. Think of all the times he's said something like "Nobody knew that Greenland existed before me," which is his way of confessing he just learned about Greenland.

Cognitive decline is not reversible. It will be interesting to see if our media continues to sanewash his demented utterings, and hasten the decline of America.

Vindictive, Stupid And Extreme

 Too often these days, listening to the news is like taking crazy pills. 

It's not simply that I disagree with just about everything Trump is doing, it's just boggling my mind that there is a constituency for anything he's doing. Ending government funding for cancer research? Did cancer write that policy? Ending efforts to curb air pollution? 

It is fashionable online to reason backwards from the stark unpopularity of these measures and make the - not unreasonable surmise that Republicans will rig it so that they never have to face the electorate again. There are structural reasons in federalism why this could be quite tricky to pull off, but for the first time, I think it's reasonable for Americans of all types to wonder if they will have meaningful elections again.

There's another explanation that is - oddly - more comforting and fits more neatly with the facts.

Trump is a deeply stupid man - both in terms of cognitive ability and knowledge. Like many stupid people, he is also cruel and vindictive; it's his defining personality trait. 

As Krugman lays out, Trump's tariff policy is just doesn't make sense from any rational angle. That's why stocks are cratering; it's why business leaders are imploring Trump to reverse course. There is a case for a measured industrial policy, as Krugman concedes. Finding ways to onshore things like computer chip manufacturing makes sense.

Naturally, Trump wants to kill it.

Why? Probably because Biden passed it. My guess is that if Trump can repeal it (I doubt it), he would then turn around and pass the exact same bill, call it TrumpChip and say it's so much better than the identical Biden Era legislation. Stupid. Vindictive.

As Richardson notes, (and this blog has been reiterating for years) the modern GOP is not a conservative party. It's a radical reactionary party. This is the common ground between the libertine, New York Trump and the Talibangelical base of his support. Trump, deeply stupid, thinks McKinley was America's Zenith. He has ideas about trade that a high school student wouldn't hold. 

He's a sentient Facebook screed by your angry uncle with a GED and "common sense". 

If you look at the accumulation of Trump's "policy portfolio" there are only two conclusions that you can draw. The first, conspiratorial view is that Trump is Russian agent who has been sent to destroy America. Comforting, as conspiracy theories are, because it suggests a plan somewhere.

The second is that he is a manifestation of Cleek's Law. Why does he want to end cancer research? Because Democrats support it. Why does he oppose good relations with Canada? Because Democrats support it. Why does he want to end the CHIPs bill? Because Democrats support it. Why does he want to throw his own voters off Medicaid? Because Democrats support it. Why does he want to end the Department of Education? Because Democrats support it.

If this sounds incredibly stupid, like deeply brain damaged, that's because it is. 

Trump, being himself deeply stupid and suffering from irreversible age-based decline, is a cruel, vane man. He hates anyone who tells him no. So, he's going to lash out wildly at anyone and anything he thinks isn't "on his side," even if those who oppose him are objectively right.

And there's no off ramp coming. 

The Long Term Crisis

 We are getting immediate feedback that Trump's policies are unpopular and not productive. The stock market, consumer confidence...lots of leading indicators are blinking red. Simple macroeconomics suggests that removing billions of dollars in federal spending, while raising prices through tariffs that are unpredictable and self-defeating is, like, really bad. And we are about to have a government shutdown.

If all this transpires the way I think it will, Democrats will - at worst - gain control of the House. I think, if you find the right candidates, you could pick up Senate seats in Maine, North Carolina, and any number of farm belt states like Iowa, Kansas or Nebraska. As for Texas and Florida, I think you have to worry about widescale disenfranchisement and fraud, but theoretically they could flip in truly terrible economic circumstances. 

Democratic control of even one House of Congress gives them subpoena power and allows for a closer look at what is certain to be the orgy of corruption over the next four years. All of which, ideally, leads the 2028 Democratic ticket (hopefully a pugilistic Dem governor like Pritzker) to victory. 

Yay!

However, as we saw in 2016 and 2024, anyone running as a Republican has a 50-50 shot at becoming president. It therefore matters what the Republican Party believes. In 2012, they believed some pretty shitty things, as Krugman lays out. Yes, Mitt Romney has a shred of human decency and integrity, but he also believed that much of the welfare state was wrong and had Paul Ryan as his running mate who wanted to kill the same Social Security that benefitted him as a child.

The simple fact of right wing politics is that it is essentially hierarchical. What the top believes, the bottom believes. Lots of this happens on the left, too, in that I really didn't prioritize trans rights until I felt the need to defend them as part of coalitional politics. I do think that right wing politics is way more susceptible to this sort of dynamic. Republicans always play "follow the leader." 

Of course, right now, their leader is among the worst Americans who ever lived. 

This is not to say that Trump did not draw energy from the Deplorables. They were always there and they remain his base. They are the 27%. They are racist, though perhaps not Klansmen. They are sexist, though perhaps not trads. 

In his piece, Krugman notes that Republicans are predictably responding to bad feedback by stopping their ears and going lalalalalalalala at the top of their lungs. GOP House members are canceling townhalls, because the optics of getting shouted out by a 67 year old veteran who can't reach anyone at Social Security or the VA is really, really bad. The result, however, is that they are sealing themselves off from exactly the sort of democratic (not Democratic) feedback from the electorate that is essential to self-government. 

Trump is going to die, most likely within the next ten years, likely sooner. Seeing obsequious lickspittles like JD Vance burrow into Trump's fat folds like some sort of parasite is instructive of where the GOP is. I still don't think Trump's gonzo "charisma" is transferable to someone else. 

The intellectual bankruptcy of the GOP, their increasing fealty to Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban, their militant know-nothingness, all point to a party that is going to fall further and further from democracy. 

That's why the fate of American democracy kind of hinges of Trump foisting a depression on us. In 1928, Herbert Hoover (a man of infinitely superior qualities to Trump) won 58% of the vote and 444 electoral votes. Four years later he didn't 40%. From 1932 until 1968, Republicans only won the White House by running the most popular man in America in Dwight Eisenhower. From 1930-1994, Democrats almost always controlled the House.

That's the only way forward (a way maybe?) to get out from behind the GOP's authoritarian turn. 

Trump 2.0 was always going to be a catastrophe for America. We can only hope the catastrophe is productive.

Social Security

 Paul Krugman helpfully has a one-stop explainer of how Social Security actually works and what its actual long term problems are and how they are actually easy to fix. 

Was On The Road

 Which meant I was not reading nearly as much news. No being plugged into the Doom Funnel, it would be very easy to think everything was fine. As Richardson notes, things are not fine. The stock markets aren't loving things either. We are likely on the verge of a government shutdown, which - on top of all the chaotic firings or maybe-firings in the federal workforce - is going to take another bite out of the GDP>

Today, Richardson gives one of her history lessons on the contrast between democracy and autocracy in American history. One thing I would add to her excellent piece. In his first term, Trump (and Bannon) explicitly modeled his presidency on Andrew Jackson, our first democratic populist. Jackson was a man of many, many flaws and bad ideas, but he did seem to be devoted to the virtues of democracy. This second time around, Trump is mirroring his presidency on William McKinley, the last gasp administration of the Robber Baron class.

Chaos

 Where to begin? The random laying off of the people who keep the Phoenix Federal Courthouse operating? Trump's entirely-not-surprising-at-all-not-really walking back of his tariffs? The blowing up of every strategic alliance? 

Trump was, indeed, "constrained" during his first term. There was a quote by someone who noted something along the lines that so many of Trump's aides - people like Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson - talked about him like was a toddler who had missed his nap. I'm also reminded again of the Fran Lebowitz quote, "You don't know anyone stupider than Donald Trump. You just don't." 

Now, Trump has the perfect, undying fealty of the GOP, who are terrified of him tweeting some shit about them, the resulting primary challenge and they are reduced to be Scott Kinzinger or Liz Cheney, which is...bad, I guess?

Businesses hate chaos. Businesses want stability. Trump is incapable of providing that, because stability requires both planning and hard work. Trump is capable of neither. He is, it appears, capable of outsourcing stripping the government for parts by allowing the unelected South African billionaire to just go nuts in direct violation of the law.

So, we may be headed for the Trumpcession, but, hey!  Maybe not!  No one knows anything anymore! Still, do we think they are really going to be able to pass a budget?

Fraud, however, does not work. Lying only works for a short span of time.

Every day there are signs we are getting closer to the "Find Out" phase of voting for this malevolent, felonious cretin. 

Begin Now

 There's a lot of caterwauling about how ineffective Democratic messaging is. Sure. Whatever. They have zero leverage at this moment so using the exact right words will I guess...something.

The one thing they should be doing right now is building party infrastructure, including candidate recruitment, especially in places where they haven't been strong recently, like Iowa. You win control of the Senate by racking up surprising wins in places that were once battlegrounds, but haven't been recently.

The farm belt, in particular, seems a fertile place to poach some seats, if Trump's plans remain in place. Democrats can, in fact, win in places like Iowa, Kansas and Montana, with the right candidate and party infrastructure. 

Lies Used To Matter

 We used to be a proper country, where a politician lying obviously and shamelessly in the People's House would bring down universal opprobrium. I have my issues with the way Matthew Yglesias too often insists on treating Trump like a normal politician who has policy positions and paper. However, he can also rightly point out that much of what Trump said last night was obviously false. Now, he does say "untrue" as opposed to "lies" and I think that matters. I read someone saying that Trump's manifestly odious personal character is now background noise, but I think some of that is that "Trump said things that were not factual" as opposed to "Trump lies all the time."

As Paul Campos notes, a LOT of American voters are, let's say, ignorant of policy and governance. Trump is already unpopular, and I have to think that tanking the stock market and causing prices to rise with a chaotic tariff policy (the Commerce Secretary suggested they might repeal the tariffs, but who really knows anything).

As Paul Krugman reminds us, the DOGE arsonists don't know shit about shit, and the first thing to break could be Social Security payments. The NRCC has already told its members not to have town halls, because while many Americans are deeply ignorant about how government works, some communities - especially farm communities and areas that have a lot of Federal workers - are already feeling the chaos. They are pissed. 

Lies matter, because you cannot make good decisions based on wrong data and facts. Trump's brazen disregard for facts combines with the sycophancy that characterizes everyone around him to create massive wellspring of ignorance. That ignorance will lead to more disastrous policy making, and the chaos that swirls around Trump is really bad for business planning. 

If we stagger around for two years with Trump actively destroying everything good about America, I have to wonder - even if we have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028, if the current iteration of the Constitution can survive not only the abuse, but the manifestation of all the many shortcomings in that document.

UPDATE: Sweet merciful Jeebus, read through the Times' "fact checking". They label outright lies as "misleading" or "needs context". 

Wholesale Misery

Whelp. It looks like Trump is going to actually follow through on his tariff bullshit. (Or maybe not. Who the hell knows?) Krugman makes the point that Trump hates Canada for its decency. While there's a point there, it seems pretty obvious that Trump hates democracies. He certainly hates democracy here at home. I've been hesitant to give into the idea of disunion, but as a New Englander, I could think of worse fates than joining Canada. Some of the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Coast could join, too. 

Being a citizen of Canada is imminently preferable to being a citizen of Trumpistan.

What is clear, as Richardson points out, is Trump is breaking laws and committing unconstitutional acts with breathtaking rapidity and frequency. She suggests that some of what DOGE is doing is eviscerating government workers and agencies for the purpose of creating the lean 19th century government that could "survive" a government shutdown. Perhaps, and given the rank evil of Trump's minions, that could be plausible. The Stephen Millers and Russell Voughts combine in equal measures the cruelty and stupidity that are the hallmarks of fascism.

The Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta has a first quarter GDP contraction predicted for 2.8%. A few weeks ago, they predicted 2.3% growth. In other words, Trump's erratic, reactionary policy making has taken healthy economic growth and possibly turned it into a recession in just a few weeks. If these tariffs really go into effect, 2.8% contraction might be optimistic. 

There are so many ways that DOGE can and likely will immiserate Americans. I've been focusing on missed Social Security checks. However, the gutting of Medicaid will also hammer elderly Americans who rely on Medicaid to cover gaps in their Medicare. Every Federal employee who is laid off is an American who will not collect a paycheck. Every impounded dollar of Federal spending is a dollar removed from the American economy.

I don't think, frankly, that a depression is off the table. Federal spending is roughly a quarter of GDP, and that includes Social Security, Medicare and defense spending. A depression is a 10% drop in GDP. Trump and Musk are apparently working this way: gut the government and THEN give the tax cut. The problem is that Republican majorities are so slim in the House, that passing an actual budget seems far fetched. 

What's more, Federal spending has a multiplier effect. A dollar spent on education or infrastructure improves the overall efficiency of the economy. You wind up improving overall GDP with spending like that. Eliminating it will make America poorer.

It is 9:00am as I write this. We will see what the Dow does today. It certainly was unhappy yesterday. However, in October of 1929, it was not a complete downward spiral. There were rallies, there were sell offs, there were good days and bad. It will be in the interest of finance to prop up the markets a bit. The Dow will tell us something, but it is not a light switch that flips and creates a recession. It will be a data point.

It's possible that a huge sell off could prompt Trump to change plans. I remain skeptical of how hands on Mr. Golf is in the running of his administration. He is also a vindictive prick, who might not waver because he's a vindictive prick.

As the Chinese curse goes: "May you live in interesting times."

The Worm Turns Slowly, But It Does Turn

 Trump has been president for six weeks. That's it.  Six weeks. He was, as he said, a Dictator on Day One. People of my persuasion have been disheartened by his victory in November, and by the breakneck speed with which he has trampled constitutional governance. One reason that the election was so much worse this time was because he actually won a plurality of the vote, unlike last time.

However, we are seeing broad pushback, especially on Elon Musk's hostile takeover of the executive branch.

Friday's Oval Office disaster will, I think, begin the process of turning heads about just how far Trump has aligned himself with Russia. Europe has gotten the message, and I think Americans will, too.

People don't usually vote foreign policy, but Trump is actively taking Russia's side on any number of issues, and that will cause opinions to shift. Most Americans are some form of patriotic; most Americans side with Ukraine. There is a non-trivial number of Republicans in Congress for whom this might be the bridge too far. That, or when Musk breaks Social Security.

Ideally they would break with Trump on their own, but if Democrats were to win the special House elections coming up that would send a stark message. Right now, many Republicans are doubtless horrified by the increasing mountains of evidence that the President of the United States is actively collaborating with our enemies. However, because they are craven little sacks of shit, they are more fearful of a primary challenge. If it looks like R+10 districts are in play, that calculus changes.

UPDATE: And let's not forget his dementia and overall stupidity. 

Why Did Trump Win Again?

 Lots of takes on this throughout the late fall, but I keep coming back to five things I think are critical.

One: Partisanship creates a very high floor. There were people who were going to vote for the Republican because he was a Republican and there were people who were going to vote for the Republican because he wasn't the Democrat. Which leads to...

Two: Incumbency is a burden from 2022-today. Covid fucked us up and we haven't recovered our equilibrium. We also have no one to blame, so we blame those in power. This has been true across the globe.

There are specific things to this race though:

Three: Trump wins over women and loses to men. OK, it's a tiny sample size, but everything about Trump stands in opposition to women in positions of authority. The young men who voted for him? Even some women? They just don't trust women in leadership roles. There's a million things to be said about why that is, but it seems pretty clear that it is true.

Four: Butler mattered. When Trump stopped as he was being rushed off stage and shouted "Fight" that was the only moment in my observation of the man that he displayed anything that might be considered a virtue. It was on camera and it was real, unlike so many of his stunts.

Five: The media still does not know how to cover a compulsive liar. Project 2025 was unpopular then and it is unpopular now. TPM is keeping a running tally of GOP congressfolk who are being ripped to pieces by constituents who are furious that Trump is doing exactly what we knew he would do if we were paying attention to Project 2025. The problem is, that Trump said he had nothing to do with it...and everyone dropped it. Remarkable.

Some of this is the willful ignorance of huge swaths of the American electorate, but the media knows he lies, but after he said he had nothing to do with the plans that he is now implementing everyone shrugged and moved on.

America As A Rogue State

 Yesterday's embarrassment performance in the Oval Office, where a petulant Trump parroted Putin's talking points and went off on Zelensky for not being a lapdog, raises the question - along with everything else Trump has done - as to whether the US is a rogue state.

The US has always played by its own rules when it suited us. We take and leave compliance with international agreements as we see fit. In most cases, we try and abide by rules we helped write, but every once in a while, an administration comes along that flouts those rules. Dubya flouted them both with the invasion of Iraq and the torture of Al Qaeda operatives.

Trump has done more than flout or ignore those rules; he has lit them on fire and pissed on the ashes. He is nakedly aligned the country with other rogue states like Russia and - one could make a case - Israel. Trump is a career criminal, and international law is terribly weak. There is effectively no coercive power to enforce those laws. That's why we take and leave them as we need to. International laws both protect and bind weaker countries. Trump - again a career criminal - has realized that there is very little that truly binds America, so he is going to do whatever he thinks is best within the requirements of the moment for him.

L'etat c'est moi. Patrimonialism.

Of course the reason America has largely abided by these agreements is that there are all sorts of advantages of having allies and setting a good example. It has been in our interest, most of the time, to live by our word.

Trump, a man who cannot help by lie, has no honor, no sense of obligation to anyone but himself.

And so, America, the world's most powerful country, is now behaving as a rogue state, unbound by the rules she helped write. 

What will follow, most likely, is the sort of international instability we haven't seen since World War II.

All because some voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin didn't like the price of eggs and were weirded out by the idea of a female president.

The Center Cannot Hold

 We are in Yeats' poem more than ever.

Things fall apart
The center cannot hold

As Paul Krugman points out, business leaders and markets are skittish because Trump is talking crazed nonsense, and he might actually mean it. A scary sample passage:

Most alarming of all, if it’s real: People within the administration appear to be floating the idea of restructuring U.S. debt via a “Mar-a-Lago Accord” that would force investors holding Treasury bills — short-term debt — to exchange them for 100-year bonds. This would effectively be a default on U.S. debt. Since the whole world financial system rests on the perceived safety of U.S. Treasuries, which are universally accepted as collateral for many transactions, such a move would threaten global economic chaos. But is the administration serious about this idea? Nobody knows.

How can a country careen from insane idea to insane idea and not fracture? How can bad idea pile upon bad idea and not crumble? 

At the root of populism and its fatal flaw is the antagonism towards expertise and  education. The problem is, we have created a world that relies on expertise and education and the batshit insanity that seems to buffet the government daily (thousands of staffer cut from Social Security!) means that there will come a moment when things really break open. We already have a dead child from measles. If Social Security checks don't come out, because Musk broke the whole thing in the name of efficiency, then shit will get very real and very painful very quickly.

The thing that gives me pause - because I've always been OK with the "find out" portion of FAFO - is how we will be able to put stuff back together with that bloated orange gasbag infesting the White House for four more years.