Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Loose Tabs

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared 13 days ago, on April 17.

Index to major articles:

I picked up this quote from a fundraising appeal from The Intercept, and it seemed like a good opening quote:

Elon Musk spent nearly $300 million to install Donald Trump in the White House and then gleefully tore through virtually every part of the federal government that does anything to help everyday people.

And now that Tesla's net income has fallen by 71 percent, he thinks he can just waltz right back to the private sector, no questions asked?

This brings to mind the phrase Fuck You Money. I mean, if anyone has it, if such a thing exists, that would have to be the richest man on earth. Elon Musk certainly acts like he thinks he has it. He thinks he answers to no one, and that everyone else must bow before him. And sure, he does get away with it much of the time, but that's mostly deference given by people who his accept his worldview and values. This is especially amusing where it comes to Trump.

Back in 2015, Trump was the guy who thought he had "fuck you money." He was by far the richest guy running for president, which allowed him to boast that he was the only truly free candidate, the only one who could do what he wanted simply because he thought it would be the right thing to do, while every other candidate was beholden to other richer guys, who ultimately pulled their strings. Of course, the big problem with that theory was that he had no clue as to what the right thing to do was, and anyone who put trust in him on that score was soon proven to be a fool. But it also turned out that Trump wasn't rich (let alone principled) enough to stand up to richer folk -- especially as he sees the presidency mostly as something to be monetized. (Perhaps at first it was more about stroking his ego, but even a world class narcissist can grow weary of that.) In the end, Trump not only doesn't have "fuck you money," he's just another toady.

On the other hand, Musk is just one person in a world of billions, most way beyond his reach or influence -- which doesn't mean he's beyond the reach or effect of all of them. By making himself so conspicuous, he's also made himself a symbol of much of what's wrong with the world today, and as such, he's made himself a target.

Bill Barclay: [03/04] China's Dangerous Inflection Point: "Is China's growth model exhausted?" I was trying to look up the author here, as some friends have arranged for him to come to Wichita and speak on Trump and the financial system. Aside from him being involved in DSA, and writing a lot for Dollars & Sense, I had no idea what he thought or why. I still can't tell you much. He starts by positing two views of China, then lays out a lot of facts without tipping his hand for any sort of predictions. The best I can say is that makes him less wrong than virtually every other American to venture an opinion on China in the last 20-30 years.

The simple explanation for why American economists and pundits are so often wrong about China is that they assume that everything depends on sustained growth, and the only way to achieve that is the way we did it, through free markets and individualist greed -- which, sure, lead to increasing inequality, ecological and social waste, and periodic financial crises. But after the depredations of the colonial period, and the chaos of Mao's false starts, China has actually proven that enlightened state direction of the economy can outperform the west, both in terms of absolute growth and in qualitative improvements to the lives of its people. Liberalizing markets has been part of their tool kit, and inequality has been a side-effect they have tolerated, perhaps even indulged, but not to the point of surrendering power and purpose (as has happened in the US, Europe, and especially Russia). What central direction can do is perhaps best illustrated in the rapid shift from massive development of coal to solar power -- a shift we understood the need for fifty years ago but have only made fitful headway on due to the corrupt influence of money on politics.

So when Barclay argues that China needs to shift to an increase in consumer goods spending in order to sustain growth rates, he's assuming that American-like consumer spending would not just be a good thing but the only possible good thing. Still, I have to wonder whether even sympathetic observers aren't blinded by their biases. I don't see much real reporting on China, and I'm not privy to any internal discussions on long-term strategy, but several things suggest to me that they're not just following the standard model of nation building (like, say, Japan did from the 1860s through the disaster of WWII) but have reframed it to different ends (as one might expect of communists, had the Russians not spoiled that thought -- perhaps the different residual legacies of Tsarism and Confucianism have something to do with this?).

While I've seen reports of increasing inequality and a frayed safety net, some things make me doubt that the rich have anything similar to the degree of power they hold in the US, Europe, Russia, and their poorer dependencies. While China has allowed entrepreneurs to develop where they could, the state has followed a plan focusing mostly on infrastructural development, systematically spreading from the vital cities to the countryside. Barclay singles out their focus on housing, but doesn't explain whether they've followed the American model (which is to grow through larger and more expensive houses) or by focusing on more efficient urban living. Housing is only a growth market as long as you can keep people moving to bigger and better houses. But just moving people from country to city is a one-time proposition, which seems to be what China's planners have done.

Similarly, China's shift from intensive coal development to solar shows not only a willingness to think of long-term efficiencies, but that they're willing to move away from sunk costs -- which in our vaunted democracy are attached to powerful political interests, making it impossible for us to do anything as simple as passing a carbon tax.

Another example of how China has been able to avoid getting trapped by crass economic interests is the pandemic response. Looking back, it was inevitable that the small business class in America would mount a huge backlash against the inconveniences of pandemic response, but China was willing to take the economic hit to impose a much more restrictive regime, thus saving millions of lives (all the while being chided by American economists for stunting growth, although in the end they fared better than most, even by such narrow measures).

PS: I looked up Barclay because some friends had invited him to come to Wichita and speak on "the international financial system, the dollar, trade, crises and Trump's (on again/off again) tariffs." He did, and gave a pretty general explanation that mostly aligned with things I already knew, with occasional political asides that I largely agreed with. In particular, his explanation of why some tariffs might work while Trump's will only cause chaos and turbulence was pretty much what I've been saying for months -- although lately, as I noted last time on Levitz, I'm coming around to the view that tariffs are bad political tools, especially given that it's often possible to come up with better ones. I considered asking a question on this and/or a couple other points, but as usual wound up tongue-tied and silent. China never came up.

Eli Clifton: [03-18] The Israeli-American Trump mega-donor behind speech crackdowns: "Miriam Adelson is more than a funder of the Maccabee Task Force, she's also its president." Given that Adelson is the biggest funder of both Trump and Netanyahu, it's getting hard to tell which is the dog and which is the tail. That one person could have so much malign influence over two "democracies" is one of the greatest absurdities of our times. By the way:

By the way, I wrote this entry after writing the closely related entry on the Lambert tweet below, but before I wrote the intro bit on Musk above -- much of which could apply just as well to Adelson, who like Musk is much richer than Trump, but who is less inclined to make herself into the story -- although as one of the top sponsors of both Trump and Netanyahu, she has as much as anyone to answer for.

Jeff Faux: [03-24] Time for a Progressive Rethink: "Anger at the Democratic Party's inept leadership and subservience to Big Money has been rising since the election. But the left also must examine our own role in enabling Trump." No doubt, but it's hard to read pieces like this without eyes glazing over, especially with lines like "Ultimately the 'identity vs. class' debates are sterile. Both are needed to create a political majority." I'd put more focus on:

  1. Setting out clear values that most Americans agree with, especially where Republicans are ineffective and/or unwilling to help.
  2. Acknowledging what works, and why it works, and keeping that as a baseline for changing what doesn't work, or doesn't work well enough.
  3. Identifying incremental policy changes that move us measurably in the right direction.
  4. Reassuring people that they have no reason to fear us overstepping the mark, and that all policies are open to be reevaluated if they don't seem to be working, or if they're producing other problems. We want tangible, practical results; not ideology.
  5. Making it clear who opposes popular reforms, and why, and acting strongly to counter their influence. In politics you need to be clear about who your enemies are, and why they are wrong.

These are very general statements, but it should be easy to see how they apply to any given policy area. Take health care, for instance. You can probably fill that form out yourself, in actual terms, without recourse to slogans like ACA or MFA.

Chris Bertram: [03-29] Trump's war on immigrants is the cancellation of free society.

Avi Shlaim: [04-04] Israel's road to genocide: This is a chapter from Shlaim's new book, Genocide in Gaza: Israel's Long War on Palestine. I should note that I was alerted to this by Adam Tooze: [04-13] Chartbook 375 Swords of Iron - Avi Shlaim & Jamie Stern-Weiner on Israel's war on Gaza, which reproduces the chapter but not the endnotes. If you have any doubts that this is genocide, and intended as such, you really owe it to yourself to read this piece. It is crystal clear on this very point, and anyone who continues to excuse or rationalize the Israeli government's behavior on this point should be ashamed.

Sarah Jones: [04-17] Pronatalism Isn't a Solution, It's a Problem: "We don't need more Elon Musk babies. We need reproductive justice."

Ana Marie Cox: [04-17] How the Radical Right Captured the Culture: "Blame Hollywood's 'unwokening' and the extraordinary rise of right-wing podcasters on slop: intellectually bereft, emotionally sterile content that's shaped by data and optimized for clicks." Long article with a lot of references I don't really get, so this is hard to recognize, or even to relate to much of what passes for culture these days.

  • Kathy Waldman: [04-26] Trump Is the Emperor of A.I. Slop: "It makes sense that a man who yearns for a reality untroubled by other humans would be drawn to an art that is untouched by anything human." I'm not really sure what's going on here, but a second article on right-wing "slop" surely deserves to be noted. I'm not sure that after Trump it will ever be possible for anyone to believe anything ever again. I'm pretty sure this is a trend that predates Trump. It certainly predates A.I., which, like capitalism, is more of an accelerant than something genuinely novel.

Jeffrey St Clair: [04-18] Roaming Charges: Trump's Penal Colony. Another weekly installment in Trump's catalog of horrors. I get the temptation not just to look away but to warily regard Trump's gross attacks on allegedly illegal people as some kind of trap, meant to provoke the sort of hysterical reaction he can easily dismiss -- after all, to his base, who but the wildly caricatured "radical left" could possibly defend the miscreants he is "saving America" from? And aren't there many more facets of his agenda, especially economic matters, that Democrats could oppose while expecting more popular support? But as St Clair makes clear, what's at stake here isn't immigration policy. It's whether the legal system can limit presidential power, and whether that power can run roughshod over the fundamental civil and political rights of any and all people in or subject to the USA. Unfortunately, Trump's criminal abuses of power are hard to explain to most people, partly because when focused on arbitrary individuals we fail to see how that may affect us, and partly because generalities, like the threat to democracy, tend to sail over our heads. (It's not like previously existing democracy really gave us much power to begin with.) We need to find effective ways of talking about Trump's fundamentally criminal-minded abuse of power. But we also need to find some alternatives beyond the widely discredited status quo ante.

Joshua Frank: [04-18] They're Coming for Us: Media Censorship in the Age of Palestinian Genocide. Starts with an example from the hard sell of the Iraq War, but as I recall there was considerable debate and debunking at the time, even if major outlets like the New York Times were totally in league with the Bush regime. A more telling example was the near total stifling of any response short of all-out war in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. (One example was how Susan Sontag was pilloried for so much as questioning Bush's labeling of the hijackers as "cowards.") While most people recognize today that the Iraq War, like the McCarthy witch hunts and the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans, was a mistake, the far more consequential decision to answer small-scale terrorism with global war is still rarely examined. Moreover, 9/11 has left the government with some legal tools that Trump is already abusing, as in the charge that anyone critical of Israel is criminally liable for aiding and abetting terrorists (Hamas, a group that has often proved more useful to Israel than to the Palestinians). But it's not just Trump, and not just the government: Israel has been using its influence to stifle free speech about a list of issues running from BDS to genocide in a quest for thought control that Trump is only too happy to jump onto.

Rob Urie: [04-18] Social Democracy isn't Going to Save the West. I figured from the title this would be mostly about Europe, but the examples mostly come from the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, which is to say the one that pines for bipartisan unity with like-minded Republicans, while making sure that nothing gets passed that doesn't benefit corporate sponsors. The chart on the increasing erosion of Medicare to privatized "Advantage" plans is especially sobering.

Matt Sledge: [04-19] The Galaxy Brains of the Trump White House Want to Use Tariffs to Buy Bitcoin. The graft behind crypto is too obvious to even give a second thought to, so why do we keep getting deluged with articles like this, on proposals that people with any sense whatsoever should have nipped in the bud?

Antonio Hitchens: [04-21] How Trump Worship Took Hold in Washington: "The President is at the center of a brazenly transactional ecosystem that rewards flattery and locksktep loyalty."

Anna Phillips: [04-21] Why Texas is seeing eye-popping insurance hikes: "Worsening storms fueled by climate change, coupled with inflation, are driving some of the highest home insurance costs in the country." I pretty easy prediction at this point is that the home insurance industry is going to go broke, losing enormous numbers of customers who can no longer afford insurance, and ultimately failing even those who can. The only politically acceptable solution is for the government to shore up the industry with reinsurance, which given the industry's profit needs will be very expensive and wasteful. But the right-wingers will scream bloody murder over socialism, and governments will be hard pressed to come up with the funds.

Natalie Allison: [04-21] The story behind JD Vance's unexpected visit with Pope Francis: "Vance and Francis had publicly disagreed in recent months on immigration policies and other aspects of church teaching." Still no details here on how Vance managed to kill the pope and win the debate. Perhaps Rick Wilson's book [Everything Trump Touches Dies] has some clues? [PS: Next day tweet: Dalai Lama Quietly Cancels Scheduled Meeting With JD Vance"] I've paid very little attention to the Pope's death, but some of the first reactions focused on his concern for Palestinians and his opposition to war in general and genocide especially.

Ryan Cooper: [04-21] Pete Hegseth May Be Too Incompetent Even for Trump: "Turns out Fox News loudmouths are bad at running the military." I'd expect them to be bad at running anything. As for the military, there are reasons to hope that Hegseth's vanity and incompetence won't have a lot of effect: the organization is very big and complex, so his ability to deal with things on a detailed level is slim; it has its own ingrained way of doing things -- a distinctive culture and worldview -- that makes it very resistant to change; it engages very little with the public, in large part because it doesn't do anything actually useful; and its mission or purpose is largely exempt from the Trumpist ideological crusade, so his people don't see a need to deliberately break things. While all government bureaucracies develop internal mores and logic that offers some resilience against incompetent management and perhaps even misguided policy dictates, few are well fortified as the military against the direct attacks Trump and Musk have launched elsewhere. More on Hegseth and the military:

Will Stone: [04-21] With CDC injury prevention team gutted, 'we will not know what is killing us'. With a bit of effort I could probably find dozens of similar stories. The following are short links easily found near this piece:

Some other typical Trump mishaps briefly noted:

Greg Grandin: [04-22] The Long History of Lawlessness in US Policy Toward Latin America: "By shipping immigrants to Nayib Bukele's megaprison in El Salvador, Trump is using a far-right ally for his own ends." After a brief intro on the outsourcing of terror prisons -- not prisons for terrorists, but institutions to terrorize prisoners -- this moves on the history, noting that "in Latin America, the line between fighting and facilitating fascism has been fungible."

Dave DeCamp: [04-24] US Military Bombed Boats Off the Coast of Somalia Using New Trump Authorities: Evidently, Trump has extended warmaking authority to military commanders outside officially designated combat zones (Iraq and Syria), so AFRICOM commanders no longer have to seek permission to bomb "suspects."

Anatol Lieven: [04-24] Ukraine and Europe can't afford to refuse Trump's peace plan: "It's actually common sense, including putting Crimea on the table." In olden days, I would automatically link to anything by Lieven, but I haven't been following Ukraine lately -- although it's certainly my impression that neither the facts nor my views have changed in quite some time. The war is bad for all concerned, and needs to be ended as soon as possible. The solution not only needs to preclude future war, but to leave the US, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia on terms friendly enough that they can cooperate with each other in the future. That means that no side should walk away thinking it has won or lost much of anything. The obvious face-saving solution would be for a cease fire that recognizes the current lines of control. I guess we can call that the "Trump plan" if that helps, but that much as been obvious for a couple years now. Not in the immediate plan but very desirable would be a series of plebiscites that could legitimize the current lines and turn them into actual borders. My pet scheme is to do this twice: once in about six months, and again in about five years. These should take place in all contested parts of Ukraine. (Kherson, for instance, is divided, but mostly controlled by Ukraine. The current division could be preserved, or one side could choose to switch to the other. Russia could also request votes in other Ukraine territories, like Odesa.) The second round would allow for second thoughts, especially if the occupying power did a lousy job of rebuilding war-torn areas. One can argue over details, but my guess is that the votes would go as expected (which would be consistent with pre-2014 voting in Ukraine). Both Russia and Ukraine should welcome immigrants from areas where their people lost. No need to impose any non-discrimination regime on either side (other than to allow exit), as the Minsk accords tried to protect Russians in Ukraine (a sore-point in Ukraine, which largely scuttled the deal, leading to the 2022 war). Russia and Ukraine need to emerge from the deal with normalized civil relations. Ukraine can join the EU if they (and the EU) want. I don't care whether they join NATO or not, but NATO should become less adversarial toward Russia, perhaps through negotiating arms reduction and economic cooperation deals. (My general attitude is "Fuck NATO": it shouldn't exist, but since it does, and since Russia took the bait and sees it as a threat, and has in turn, especially in attacking Ukraine, contributed to the mutual suspicion, the whole thing should be wound down carefully.) Sooner or later, US sanctions should also be wound down, and the US should ultimately get out of the business of sanctioning other countries.

Trump, of course, promised to end the war "in a day," which was never likely, not because someone sensible couldn't pull it off in quick order (not a day, given the paperwork, but a few weeks would have been realistic), but because Trump's an ill-mannered, arrogant nincompoop who neither understands anything nor cares about doing the right thing.

  • Anatol Lieven: [03-07] Fareed Zakaria, stuck somewhere in 1950 or 1995, is wrong again: "Transatlantic elites let political bias and their sclerotic world view prevent them from seeing the Ukraine War for what it really is." Starts by noting that "certain Trump statements have been utterly wrong, unnecessary, and counter-productive" (e.g., "threats to take Greenland and aggressive mockery of Canada and Mexico," "constant threats of tariff increases"). Zakaria appears here as one of those pundits who have vowed to fight for Ukraine as doggedly against Trump as they have against Putin.

Ha-Joon Chang: [04-24] There Should Be No Return to Free Trade: A Jacobin interview with the Korean economist, who was one of the first to understand that so-called Free Trade was something much different from the win-win proposition it was presented as (e.g., see Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade the the Secret History of Capitalism, from 2007, among his other books).

Annie Zaleski: [04-24] David Thomas, Pere Ubu's defiantly original leader, dies at 71. One of my all-time favorite groups, starting from their first album, The Modern Dance (1978), which was some kind of personal ideal: a combination of concepts, aesthetics, and sounds perfectly in tune with my thinking and aspirations at the time. Also in obituaries this week:

Sarah Jones: [04-24] 'Education's Version of Predatory Lending': "Vouchers don't help students. Their real purpose is more sinister, says a former supporter." Interview with Josh Cowen, author of The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers.

David Dayen: [04-24] The Permanent Tariff Damage: "Trump tries to walk back his tariffs after supply chain collapse and threats of empty store shelves. But reversing course entirely may not be possible."

  • David Dayen: [04-03] They're Not Tariffs, They're Sanctions: "Stop trying to place coherence on a policy that's really just a mob boss breaking legs and asking for protection money."

    The problem with this "logic" is that America is not indispensable and other countries have just as much ability to retaliate, forcing the whole world into recession and making it very clear who started it.

Christian Farias: [04-26] Judge Dugan's Arrest Has Nothing to Do With Public Safety: She was arrested for allegedly "obstructed the functions of ICE by concealing a person the agency wanted to arrest while that person, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was in Dugan's courtroom facing her in an unrelated matter." There is also an Updates file on this. Some more tidbits from the Trump Injustice Department:

Ross Barkan: [04-26] Trump's Most Unhinged Policy May Be Starving MAGA Arkansas of Disaster Relief: "Snuffing out FEMA is causing some collateral damage." Some jokes are funny in one context but not at all funny in another. Ronald Reagan's line about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" was pretty funny when you didn't actually need the help, but it's actually a line that's been laughed at by no one ever in the wake of a natural disaster. Charity may help a bit, but it's mostly accompanied by opportunists and hustlers, and most of the money sticks to the fingers of whoever's handling it. And while the almighty market might eventually organize a somewhat optimal response, that's only in time frames where we all die. Disaster relief is one thing where we all automatically look to government for help. After a decade-plus as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton knew that well enough that he made FEMA Director a Cabinet-level position. GW Bush then staffed it with shady cronies and their screw ups sunk his presidency even worse than Iraq. With its energy policies, Trump is guaranteeing that there will be ever more and worse natural disasters, and that a many Americans will blame him directly. Still, trashing FEMA shows a level of cluelessness that is mind-boggling. Remember how the winning campaign slogan of 2024 was "Trump will fix it!"? But since taking office, all he's done has been to break things further, perversely going out of the way to break the very organizations that had been set up to fix problems when they arise.

Matt Sledge: [04-26] Marco Rubio Silences Every Last Little Criticism of Israel at State Department: "he singled out a human rights office that he said had become a platform for 'left-wing activists' to pursue 'arms embargoes' on Israel: The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor."

AP: [04-27] White House journalists celebrate the First Amendment at the annual press dinner: I've always regarded this as a preposterously hideous event meant to glorify the absolutely lowest scum of the journalism profession: the people who do nothing with their lives other than wait hat-in-hand for the White House to spoon feed bits of self-important propaganda. The only saving grace was that sometimes stand-up comic might hit a funny bone, or some other nerve. But then the dinner would wind up with the sitting president trying his own hand at telling jokes on themselves. (The only line I remember was from GW Bush: "This is an impressive crowd: the have's and have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.") As I recall, Trump broke tradition, and was a no-show. For some reason, the only president who had worked as a professional comic didn't have the confidence to risk appearing. Their initial idea this year was Amber Ruffin, but the timid Fourth Estate peremptorily cancelled her, yet still had the gall to pose their dinner as a celebration of free speech. And what better way to do this than by giving themselves awards for their courage? I wouldn't normally bother with this, but of all the stories they could have broke even from their rarefied perches, these are the ones they chose:

  1. Aldo Thompson of Axios won The Aldo Beckman Award for his coverage of the coverup of Biden's decline while in office.
  2. The Award for Excellence in Presidential Coverage Under Deadline Pressure (Print): Aamer Madhami and Zeke Miller of the AP, for reporting on the White House altering its transcript to erase Biden calling Trump supporters "garbage."
  3. The Award for Excellence in Presidential Coverage Under Deadline Pressure (Broadcast) Rachel Scott of ABC News, for her coverage of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
  4. The Award for Excellence in Presidential News Coverage by Visual Journalists: Doug Mills of the New York Times, for his photograph of Biden walking under a painting of Abraham Lincoln.
  5. The Katherine Graham Award for Courage and Accountability: Reuters, for its series on the production and smuggling of the deadly narcotic fentanyl.
  6. Collier Prize for State Government Accountability: AP for its series, "Prison to Plate: Profiting off America's Captive Workforce."
  7. Center for News Integrity Award: Anthony Zurcher of the BBC for his coverage of the fallout from Biden's handling of the Gaza War.

So, Gaza is bad, because it looks bad for Biden, but everything looks bad for Biden, and Trump was only newsworthy as a sympathetic victim. [PS: I looked at some of Zurcher's reporting, which was pretty anodyne. You get no sense of the pain and agony at the root of the story, because all anyone cares about is how it inconveniences the handful of political figures the reporter is assigned to cover.]

Nathan Tayhlor Pemberton: [04-28] Why the Right Fantasizes About Death and Destruction: "In Richard Seymour's Disaster Nationalism, he attempts to diagnose the apocalyptic nature of conservatism around the world." There is probably something here, although the tendency to psychologize issues is always suspicious. On the other hand, when he offers Israel as an example, it's easy enough to connect the dots (my emphasis added):

Israel's drift to the far right can be explained, he thinks, by its embrace of free-market neoliberal doctrine, which, beginning in the 1970s, effectively yanked off the restraints on Zionism's ethnonationalist urges. Hollowed-out unions, crippled welfare systems, and an ineffectual liberal opposition allowed a far-right ruling coalition to gain control of Israeli society without dissent. Yet, despite (or perhaps because of) this, crises abound there. Israel is among the most unequal societies in the Western world. A sense of hyper-victimization is rampant in the populace. The country's "liberal" democracy is a contradictory sham, no more than a two-tiered apartheid system permitting only second-class citizenship to Arabs. Worst yet, Zionism's promise to deliver an ethnically pure "homeland" to Jews is a delusional lie, in part because Palestinians continue to persist in both their opposition and their sheer existence. As a result, endless war is the only political program on offer. (It's the only thing capable of delivering "moral regeneration," as Seymour puts it.) For flailing states like Israel, disaster nationalism is a way in which to "metabolise" the dysfunction. This is the dreamwork that keeps afloat the fantasy of ever-growing economies, of safer borders, of purer societies, and of returning to the way that things once supposedly were. What is less clear, after the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians and the near-total destruction of Gaza, is whether any number can quench these urges once the dreamwork is fully set in motion.

The American right has been building and peddling its own version of this dreamwork from Reagan through Trump, although come to think of it, the disorienting fantasies go back to the ridiculous Birchers and Randians in the 1950s, which led to the Goldwater campaign in 1964. The popular breakthroughs came with Nixon, who claimed support from a "silent majority," and Reagan, who promised deliverance from the unsettling troubles of the 1960s and 1970s. His "it's morning in America" offered us a tranquilizer to mask the pain he administered, as many Americans turned to comforting fantasies. Even when it wore off, Americans were left dazed and confused -- a condition only made worse when Democrats like Clinton and Obama tried to sell their own branded versions of American fantasyland rather than expose what the right was actually doing.

I never for a moment bought into Reagan's spiel: my stock line at the time was "the only boom industry in America is fraud." If you missed the moment, the book I recommend is Will Bunch: Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy, mostly because he sees right through Reagan and cuts him no slack -- unlike the more "nuanced" but still useful books by Rick Perlstein and Gary Wills (both did better with Nixon, especially the latter's Nixon Agonistes, as he was a much more complex, arguably even tragic but in no sense sympathetic, figure). I had so little respect for Reagan that I long resisted the idea that his election delineated an era in American history: even though my days as a starry-eyed American idealist ended quite definitively in the late 1960s, I couldn't fully accept that America was capable of making such a bad turn. I only let go of that naivete when I realized the extent to which Clinton and Obama saw themselves as perfecting an idealized Reaganite dream. Only just today, about 50 pages into Carlos Lozada's The Washington Book, did it occur to me that Obama's presidency was mostly an attempt to write a happy ending to the Reagan Revolution and rescue the American Dream. He, of course, failed, as the American people had watched the same movie but chose instead the Trump ending, where the bad guys triumph and burn the whole set down.

This might be a good point to mention:

  • Steve M: [04-29] Even When Republicans Were Voting for Mainstream Candidates, Trumpism Is What They Wanted: Skip the piece that sets this up, where "Jonathan Chait tries to imagine a normal Trump presidency," and go straight to the meat of the argument:

    In the pre-Trump years, even when Republican voters settled on Mitt Romney and John McCain as party standard-bearers, they craved more, perking up in 2008 only when the charismatic demagogue Sarah Palin joined the ticket and embracing would-be authoritarians Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in 2012 before Mitt Romney's money sank their campaigns. Trump is the kind of president they've always wanted, the fantasy avenger from the QAnon posts so many of them binge-consumed during the height of the COVID pandemic.

  • Steve M: [04-28] We Have to Save Ourselves From Trump, Because Ambitious Careerists Won't: "That's why the second-term Trump resistance came from the bottom up. The rest of us have less to lose." He's contrasting us to the media and political hacks (including businesses, nonprofit orgs, and law firms) who Trump is so focused on intimidating. But much of the "bottom up" resistance has everything to lose, with few if any options to just play along (like most of the careerists can, and many are doing).

  • Steve M: [04-27] You Know What Else People Discuss Around Their Kitchen Tables? Life-Threatening Illnesses. Of the "specific issues" mentioned below, the one with the most anti-Trump polling is "Reducing federal funding for medical research," with 21% support, 77% opposed.

    Trump's numbers are especially bad on specific issues . . . If establishment Democrats are worried about attacking Trump in his areas of strength, maybe they should stop worrying -- he no longer seems to have areas of strength. But if they want to be cautious, you'd imagine that they'd want to go for the areas where he's weakest. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The most timid Democrats are locked into a rigid formula. Talk about nothing, except the economy and Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. Never veer from this path.

    My explanation for this is that all politicians have three jobs: talk to donors to raise money, which mostly involves promising to make them more money, and that they have to do almost continuously; talk to voters, but that only really matters in the run up to an election, and by then it's usually easier to slam their opponents than to promise anything substantial; and, once elected, address and solve real problems, but that's hard (especially after your commitments to donors and voters, and with every special interest represented by hordes of lobbyists) and failure is easy to explain and who really notices anyway? Republicans have it a bit simpler, because their donors and base want different things and the latter rarely realizes when they're in conflict. As for fixing things, no one expects much from Republicans other than lower taxes (and other favors to the rich).

    The economy is a safe topic for Democrats, because they can legitimately promise to make the rich richer, which is what donors want to hear. Medicare/medicaid is also safe, because it doesn't bother donors, and helps save capitalism from its more inhumane effects, thus forestalling the spectre of revolution. (Republicans disagree here, because they have so little respect for little folk they don't see any risk to their dominion.) Democrats also find it safe to talk in generalities -- like norms, due process, autocracy vs. democracy -- which, again, donors accept, while most people have trouble translating such abstractions to their everyday lives. That seems to be the point, as anything more explicit runs the risk of upsetting some donor or lobbyist.

    For Democrats, this fear of saying anything unsafe is drummed in from the start. It comes from the donors, and from the party consultants (who are basically conduits to donors), and it is reinforced by the media, ever vigilant for a gaffe or any form of hypocrisy, not least because they know the Republican attack machine is always ready to pounce. The most obvious example of donor bias right now concerns Israel. Well over half of Democratic voters are appalled by the genocide in Gaza and want to see the US pressing hard for a ceasefire [see: 7 in 10 Democrats Say US Should Restrict Aid to Israel], but fewer than 1-in-10 elected Democrats are willing to say so in public. One problem here is that playing it safe rarely helps Democrats, because Republicans are just as happy exploiting it as proof of corruption and hypocrisy. Democrats have no answer for that. On the other hand, Trump seems to be immune to such charges, because everyone acknowledges that he lies all the time, and lots of people see his corruption as cunning (or at least don't see that it hurts them).

    So, sure, Democrats need to learn to talk better to ordinary folk about everyday issues. It might help to spend less time courting donors and more time speaking (and listening) to the public. They need to get their emotional signals straight, which can include outrage when the occasion calls for it (which with Trump is pretty damn often). They've got a lot of work to do. We need at least to see them trying. As long as they are, we need to cut them some slack. Politics isn't easy. Otherwise, politicians could do it, and clearly they can't.

  • Steve M: [04-26] The GOP is a Niche Party. So much for the 18-29 Republican wave.

  • Steve M: [04-24] Trump's Approval Seemed to Have a High Floor, but Not Anymore. Interesting thing in the chart here is how support for Trump on inflation has fallen almost exactly in line with support for his tariffs. The argument that tariffs would cause higher prices seems to have stuck. (On the one hand, it's obvious; on the other, why did anyone think Trump would do anything to fight inflation other than start a recession?)

Branko Marcetic: [04-28] How Joe Biden Gave Us a Second Trump Term: A Current Affairs interview with just about the only writer who bothered in 2020 to publish a book on the Democratic Party presidential nominee, Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. More recently, Marcetic has written a two-part assessment of Biden's term [01-17]: At Home, Joe Biden Squandered Countless Opportunities, and On Foreign Policy, Biden Leaves a Global Trail of Destruction. I don't really feel like rehashing all this now, but it's here for future reference.

Herb Scribner/Praveena Somasundaram: [04-29] Trump administration fires Holocaust Museum board members picked by Biden: "The White House said it will replace former board members, including former second gentleman Doug Emhoff, 'with steadfast supporters of the State of Israel'." All part of their redefinition of "genocide" according not to what is done but to who does it, so they can convert the horror most people feel when faced with genocide to antisemitism that might convince diaspora Jews to move to their supposedly safe haven in Israel. Not that they had much to worry about with Biden appointees, but Trump likes this idea so much he wants to hog all the credit for promoting it. Recall that the US Holocaust Museum was created by Jimmy Carter as a sop to get Israel to sign the peace deal with Egypt. Of course, Americans were horrified by the Nazi Judeocide, but it also had the convenience of swearing eternal memory there while deliberately overlooking holocausts much closer to home.

Zack Beauchamp: [04-29] How Trump lost Canada: "Trump's '51st state' talk brought Canada's Liberals back from the dead -- and undermined a key American alliance."

Nick Turse: [04-30] The First Forever War: "The Vietnam War Is Still Killing People, 50 Years Later."

Scattered tweets:

  • Matt Huber [04-28]: responding to a Cory Booker tweet: "We must stand up and speak out, not because something is left or right, but if it is right or wrong."

    I really do blame Obama for convincing a generation of Democrats that you can will your way into power via platitudes.

  • Sam Hasselby [04-29]: responding to quotes from Mike Huckabee: "I believe Israel is a chosen place, for a chosen people, for a chosen purpose." "There is no explanation for the USA other than there was a God who intervened on behalf of the colonists." "Our alliance is so strong because it is not political, it is spiritual."

    There is vastly more anti-semitism in American evangelicalism than there is in the Ivy League, including Mike Muckabee the US Ambassador to Israel. Huckabee is a real end-timer millenarian. He expects Jesus Christ to return in the Second Coming, in which all Jewish and Muslim . . . [his ellipses]

  • Caitlin Johnstone [04-28]:

    The word "antisemite" has become so meaningless that now whenever someone uses it you have to ask them "What kind? The Hitler-was-right kind or the stop-bombing-hospitals kind?"

  • Drop Site News [04-28]: Headline: "REPORT: Biden Official Admit They Never Pressured Israel for Ceasefire, as Israeli Leaders Boast of Playing Washington": Long multi-part tweet, and credible as far as it goes, but where's the actual report? I'm seeing lots of interesting stuff on their website, including The Ongoing Gaza Genocide and the State of "Ceasefire" Negotiations, and Netanyahu Promises the "Final Stage" of Gaza Genocide Will Lead to Implementation of "Trump's Plan", but nothing that matches this story. What I am seeing are multiple tweets attacking AOC, arguing that her "lying about Joe Biden working for a ceasefire will haunt her for the rest of her career."

One more tweet: [04-21] This started as a bullet item above, but turned into its own section:

Daniel Lambert: [Image from National Review reads: "Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap projected an antisemitic message onstage at Coachella this weekend. It read: 'Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. It is being enabled by the U.S. government who arm and fund Israel despite their war crimes. F*** Israel, Free Palestine.'" The two statements are unequivocally true, way beyond any conceivable doubt. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow: it's not one that I personally endorse -- but it is not uncommon or unnatural that when two countries commit and rationalize genocide, that other people would denounce the aggressors -- most want them to be stopped, and many want to see them punished, both for their own crimes and as a warning to others -- and would find themselves in sympathy with the victims.

But the only conclusions that actually matter are the ones backed with power. Even prominent politicians who clearly oppose genocide have little if any effect as long as Netanyahu's administration has enjoyed blank check support from Biden and Trump, and both political establishments are isolated from public disapproval. The idea of treating any criticism of Israel as antisemitism is a cynical smoke screen to deny, and increasingly to banish, dissent from current political policy. If anything is antisemtic, it is the attempt to link all Jews everywhere to the genocidal policies of Netanyahu and his allies in Israel. While most people can see through this ploy, the net effect is surely to promote more antisemitism -- which for Zionists is actually a feature, as they depend on antisemitism to drive Jews from the diaspora to Israel. (Which fits in nicely with the desire of traditional antisemites on Europe and America.) The thing to understand here is that the people who are trying to define criticism of Israel (and American policy supporting Israel) are not just acting in bad faith, but are promoting widespread, indiscriminate anti-Jewish blowback.

As such, they are acting against the best interests of most Jews worldwide, and against however may Jews who disagree with Netanyahu and his mob within Israel. If your prime interest is solidarity with Palestinians, you're unlikely to care about this antisemitism line -- either you recognize it as rubbish, or perhaps you take the bait and start making your own generalizations about Jewish support for Israel. But if you actually care about Israel, even if you're very reluctant to acknowledge its long troubled history, you need to recognize that this ploy it first and foremost a scheme to keep you in line and under control. Netanyahu has build his whole career on making and keeping enemies. He knows how to use their hate for his own purposes. What he can't handle is his (well, Israel's) friends turning on him, because when they do, he's finished, and so is his genocidal war. This antisemitism ploy is a thin reed to hang his political future on, not least because it's patently ridiculous, but as long as Trump is cashing Adelson's checks, the fix seems to be in -- giving them the illusion of winning even while public opinion is heading steadily the other direction.

By the way, consider this piece:

  • Isaac Chotiner: [04-22] The Biden Official Who Doesn't Oppose Trump's Student Deportations: "Why the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt blames universities for 'opening the door' to the Trump Administration's professed campaign to tackle antisemitism." Lipstadt is a good example of someone who has built her career on exaggerating the importance and prevalence of antisemitism in America, which makes her the perfect sucker for this line of attack. By the way, Nathan J Robinson tweeted about this article:

    Many liberals would happily get on board with huge parts of the authoritarian agenda if it was presented a little less crassly. That's why I think Trump is ultimately foolish and will fail. He doesn't understand that many liberal elites could very easily be allies of fascism.

    Harvard for instance didn't really want to fight Trump and would have struck a deal with him if he'd been just a little more delicate. These people are naturally capitulators to authoritarianism, not enemies of it. Trump is so stupid that he forces them to be his adversaries.

    Perhaps that is because Trump isn't self-conscious enough to see fascism as an ideological agenda. For him, it's just a bundle of his personality's irritable mental gestures. He doesn't care whether anyone else agrees with him, as long as they let him have his way. Of course, over time he is increasingly surrounded by followers who do believe in fascism-for-fascism's sake (Miller and Bannon from his first term, practically everyone this time).

PS: Kneecap published a statement, so let's file it here:

Since our statements at Coachella -- exposing the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people -- we have faced a coordinated smear campaign.

For over a year, we have used our shows to call out the British and Irish governments' complicity in war crimes.

The recent attacks against us, largely emanating from the US, are based on deliberate distortions and falsehoods. We are taking action against several of these malicious efforts.

Let us be absolutely clear.

The reason Kneecap is being targeted is simple -- we are telling the truth, and our audience is growing.

Those attacking us want to silence criticism of a mass slaughter. They weaponize false accusations of antisemitism to distract, confuse, and provide cover for genocide.

We do not give a f*ck what religion anyone practices. We know there are massive numbers of Jewish people outraged by this genocide just as we are. What we care about is that governments of the countries we perform in are enabling some of the most horrific crimes of our lifetimes -- and we will not stay silent.

No media spin will change this.

Our only concern is the Palestinian people -- the 20,000 murdered children and counting.

The young people at our gigs see through the lies.

They stand on the side of humanity and justice.

And that gives us great hope.

I'll note that while much of what they've said is indeed "absolutely clear," two lines are open to wide interpretation: "Fuck Israel" and "Free Palestine." I personally wouldn't read anything more than the minimum into such phrases. "Fuck Israel" goes beyond opposing genocide to expressing contempt for the rationalizations Israel's supporters offer for their racism and genocide. "Free Palestine" expresses the hope that Palestinians can live in peace and freedom in the lands they call home. I see no reason they can't enjoy that freedom in lands also inhabited by Israelis, but that seems to be up to the Israelis, whose desires to kill and expel Palestinians are no longer latent within Zionist ideology, but have been shamelessly exposed over the last 18 months. That anyone could interpret such coarse slogans as meaning that Palestinians seek to do unto all Israelis what some Israelis are currently doing pretty indiscriminately to all Palestinians in Gaza and many in the other Occupied Territories just shows how hegemonic Israel's paranoid propaganda has become.

The one quibble I have with Kneecap's statement is that I wouldn't stop at "20,000 murdered children" as I am every bit as offended by the countless murdered adults -- even the so-called "militants" (which Israel seems to blanket define as any male 15-60, a typically gross generalization; not would I exempt actual militants -- while I have no more sympathy for them than I have for Israel's, or anyone's, soldiers, I have no doubt but that they were driven to fight by Israeli injustice, and that nearly all of them would put down their arms if given the chance to live in a free and just society). In any case, the solution is never to kill your way to "victory." It is to establish a fair and equitable system of justice, while letting past fears and hates subside into history.

When I opened this file, I left myself an extra day to add a few new pieces. In particular, I was thinking that as Trump's regime passes its 100-day mark, we'd be deluged with summaries, and that would be a good way to close. Trump himself celebrated the milestone with a rally -- see Trump rallies supporters in Michigan to mark 100 days in office -- where he bragged: "We've just gotten started. You haven't seen anything yet."

By the way, the "100 days" benchmark was largely invented in response to the first 100 days of Franklin Roosevelt's first term, in 1933. For a good history, see Jonathan Alter: The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope. (There is a new piece by Alter below.) Roosevelt had won a landslide election in November, which also produced large Democratic majorities in Congress (also, many of the Republicans who survived, especially in the Senate, were on the progressive side of the GOP), but couldn't take office until March. During that period, Herbert Hoover not only remained as president, he doubled down on doing nothing to stop the depression. Roosevelt was Hoover's polar opposite: a politician with a strong belief that government could and should act dramatically to help people and improve the economy, but with few fixed ideas about what to do, a willingness to try things, and to make changes according to whatever worked best. The most immediate problem there was the banking system, which was nearing total collapse. His handling of the banking crisis was probably the single most brilliant exercise of presidential power ever. He did three things: he declared a "bank holiday," briefly closing the banks to halt the panic that was causing banks to fail due to runs on savings; he went on the radio, and patiently and expertly explained to people how banking works, and why they need to show some patience, so he could reopen the banks without triggering a panic; and he passed a major bill regulating the banking system (known as Carter-Glass, the law that Bill Clinton repealed, leading to the collapse of the financial system in 2008), which included Federal Deposit Insurance (a rare case where the very existence of insurance prevents it from ever having to pay out). That was just one of 15 bills, many major, that Roosevelt signed in his 100 days. He went on to do much more during his long presidency (including Social Security, and leading the fight in WWII), but those 100 days were especially remarkable: unprecedented, and a yardstick that no later president has some close to matching.

Trump, in contrast, has passed no significant legislation, nor has he made any remotely successful efforts to mold public opinion. What he has done has been to use (and abuse) his executive powers to an extraordinary, unprecedented degree, further exposing the long-time shift of power from Congress to the Executive Branch, and the inability of Congress and/or the Courts to function as any sort of limit on presidential power (largely due to Trump's absolute domination of the Republican Party, which enjoys narrow majorities in Congress and an effectively packed Court system).

Not a lot of really good summaries to date, but here are a few more pieces:

  • Aliya Uleuova/Will Craft/Andrew Witherspoon: [04-30] Trump 100 days: tariffs, egg prices, Ice arrests and approval ratings -- in charts.

  • Sasha Abramsky: [04-29] The First 100 Days of Self-Dealing Trump's Thugocracy.

  • Jonathan Alter: [04-29] Trump's First 100 Days: Roosevelt in Reverse: "FDR calmed and unified the country: Trump has terrified and further divided us."

  • Amnesty International: [04-30] President Trump's First 100 Days: Attacks on Human Rights, Cruelty and Chaos.

  • Jamelle Bouie: [04-30] The New Deal Is a Stinging Rebuke of Trump and Trumpism: The FDR standard, again, which should be measured by quality as well as quantity. Trump, with his 100 executive orders on day one, clearly has the quantity, but many of those are tied up in the courts, and most are subject to repeal as cavalierly as they were instituted. As for quality, one way to measure it this early in the game might be to compare polling, which is starkly down for Trump so far. We don't have comparable figures for Roosevelt, but it's a fairly safe guess that he was more popular after 100 days than when he started. Four years later he was reelected in the largest electoral landslide to that point. Also by Bouie:

    • Jamelle Bouie: [04-26] Trump Doesn't Want to Govern: "He wants to rule."

    • Jamelle Bouie: [04-23] One Way to Keep Trump's Authoritarian Fantasy From Becoming Our Reality: "Trump wants you to think resistance is futile. It is not." Also (omitting a parenthetical I don't think helps):

      Cooperation with a leader of this ilk is little more than appeasement. It is little more than a license for him to go faster and push further -- to sprint toward the consolidated authoritarian government of Trump's dreams. . . .

      The individuals and institutions inclined to work with Trump thought they would stabilize the political situation. Instead, the main effect of going along to get along was to do the opposite: to give the White House the space it needed to pursue its maximalist aims. . . .

      Trump wants us to be demoralized. He wants his despotic plans to be a fait accompli. They will be if no one stands in the way. But every time we -- and especially those with power and authority -- make ourselves into obstacles, we also make it a little less likely that the administration's authoritarian fantasy becomes our reality.

      I'll add that just as Trump's been using his first 100 days to see what he can get away with, the opposition is also testing what works, and adjusting as we go. Trump offended some very powerful interests with his tariff fiasco. He got an electoral rebuke in Wisconsin, and another one in Canada. The honeymoon with the press is starting to wear thin. No doubt he has already done a lot of damage, and will continue to do so, but the more he does the more he exposes his moral and political bankruptcy, and that can only draw more opposition.

  • Martina Burtscher: [04-30] How Trump 2.0 Overturned Years of Climate Progress in 100 Days.

  • John Cassidy: [04-28] From "America First" to "Sell America": "Donald Trump's first hundred days have been an unprecedented economic fiasco."

  • Thomas B Edsall: [04-22] Trump Is Insatiable. That's possibly the single most damning thing you can say about a political figure. You're admitting that you can't deal with him rationally. Sooner or late, the only recourse you're left with is to stop him. Needless to say, it doesn't take many paragraphs before the Hitler analogies start appearing. There may well be many differences between Trump and Hitler, but insatiability is the one big thing them have in common, and the one thing no one can afford to overlook. Also:

    • Thomas B Edsall: [04-29] How Does a Stymied Autocrat Deal With Defeat? My first reaction was that Hitler slunk into his bunker and killed himself (right after killing the newlywed Eva Braun), but Edsall doesn't go there. He solicits input from his usual circle of consultants, who offer bits of insight like "Trump is a coward who has convinced the world he is brave." That's one vote for retreat, but the only one.

  • Ed Kilgore: [09-29] Trump Wasted First 100 Days on Indulging His MAGA Base. "The 47th president could have build a successful administration from his 2024 victory." Not really. Not only was competence not in his nature, it would have been off-brand. Perhaps some other Republican would have used the office to exploit the Democrats' bipartisanship instincts, secure in the knowledge that the Republican attack machine would cut him some slack, but with Trump it was always going to be all about the graft. The only question would be how discrete it would be, or as it turns out, how obviously stupid and insanely chaotic? Which leads us to:

    • Errol Louis: [04-29] What Will It Take to Stop Politicians From Insider Trading? "From Donald Trump to MTG, corruption is taking on new heights." The answer is probably the end of capitalism and the containment of ego, neither of which seems thinkable let alone possible. Of course, voters could ultimately hold politicians responsible for serving in the public interest, but the entire system, including the media, is stacked against that.

  • Michael Kruse: [04-28] The Worst Hundred Days: This starts with notes on FDR's 100 days, LBJ's substantial but somewhat slower legislative accomplishments, and Eisenhower's rather different approach to his first 100 days, and finds Trump faring poorly by every measure.

  • Andrew Marantz: [04-28] Is It Happening Here? "Other countries have watched their democracies slip away gradually, without tanks in the streets. That may be where we're headed -- or where we already are." Longer and deeper than a mere "100 day" review, but that's what the Trump piece amounts to, against a backdrop of Orbán and How Democracies Die.

  • Schuyler Mitchell: [04-29] How Trump's 100 Days Built Off the Far Right Blueprint of Project 2025.

  • David Remnick: [04-27] One Hundred Days of Ineptitude: "Now we know that Donald Trump's first term, his initial attempt at authoritarian primacy, was amateur hour, a fitful rehearsal."

  • Silky Shah: [04-28] Trump's First 100 Days Show Immigrant Jails Are Authoritarian Testing Grounds.

  • Alex Shephard: [04-29] Think Trump's Unpopular Now? Just Wait.

  • Michael Tomasky: [04-28] In 100 Days, Trump Has Invented Something New: Clown-Show Fascism.

  • Nate Weisberg: [04-28] Donald Trump Is Following the Sam Brownback Playbook: "The former Kansas governor's radical economic agenda undermined the state's prosperity, decimated vital government services, tanked his popularity, and put a Democrat in power. Could the same fate await the current president?" I don't think this piece is very accurate in terms of what Brownback did and Trump is doing, nor in terms of prognosis: true that Kansas elected a Democratic governor after Brownback left to work in the Trump State Department, and true that he was pretty unpopular when he left, but Republicans retained control of the state legislature, often with "veto-proof" majorities.

  • Nathan J Robinson: [01-20] Do We Need a Second New Deal? This has nothing to do with the 100 days assessment, but it does give you a pretty good sense of how Roosevelt managed his first 100 days and the whole New Deal, so is worth a mention here.

Let's close with a quote from Carlos Lozada: The Washington Book: How to Read Politics and Politicians, p. 61, from 2015, when he read "The Collected Works of Donald Trump":

Instead, I found . . . well, is there a single word that combines revulsion, amusements, respect, and confusion? That is how it feels, sometimes by turns, often all at once, to binge on Trump's writings. Over the course of 2,212 pages, I encountered a world where bragging is breathing and insulting is talking, where repetition and contradiction come standard, where vengefulness and insecurity erupt at random.

Elsewhere, such qualities might get in the way of the story. With Trump they are the story. There is little else. He writes about his real estate dealings, his television show, his country, but after a while that all feels like an excuse. The one deal Trump has been pitching his entire career -- the one that culminates in his play for that most coveted piece of property, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- is himself.

I don't want to quibble, but I'm having trouble fitting "respect" into this puzzle. Everything else, sure, and you could skip 2,000 pages and still get there. There is much more quotable here, but it looks like you can find the original article here. For a more recent reading of Trump's oeuvre, see John Ganz: [04-07] Dog Eat Dog: "The books of Donald Trump." Most of us know orders of magnitude more about Trump now than we did ten years ago, but with little more than his ghost-written books, Lozada's picture is already as complete and astute as Ganz's. That suggests he's extraordinarily shallow and transparent to anyone who gives him the least bit of critical thought. Which leaves one wondering why millions of voters can't see through him? Or do they just not care?

Current count: 180 links, 11956 words (14518 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.