I think you have to ask, is this Trump or the Heritage Foundation. Is this Trump or the rich billionaires. Is this Trump or....
I don't think you can attribute any kind of plan to Trump other than a lizard like self interest. The other factions of MAGA each have their own agenda so while one faction may be globalists another faction may be populist and yet another faction may be something else entirely. Maybe the leopards are eating the faces of whatever faction is in the weakest position and this will change from time to time as things progress.
Good points and true. But in the end, Trump is the figurehead. And whoever is directing MAGA policy right now not helping their cause by alienating and putting their supposed allies on defense.
Yes, if Trump was serious about creating a longer-term movement, he would have done those things. But if he’s a malignant narcissist with escalating dementia, as many of us think, he’s completely incapable of such a strategy. He is now the complete puppet of the oligarchs and Project 2025 puppeteers.
Mmmmmm but the thesis that Trump has a nationalist populist agenda he wants to spread is itself suspect. Instead Trump uses nationalist populist (& fundamentalist) notoons purely to gather personal power. "Fortress America", beset on all sides by enemies, w no allies, is exactly what he wants. His "allies" are personal: Putin, Urban, et al. "We have always been at war w EastAsia" is the desideratum.
But that wasn't the thesis. The Thesis was that he doesn't have an "agenda" that he wants to spread. But he could if he wanted, and has a great opportunity to do so. But he's blowing it and hastening his movement's demise in the process. Hence the leopard's own face metaphor.
>> “If MAGA can lead to these things—exacerbating human misery, WW3-like expansionist dreams—one might ask themselves how they can keep supporting it.” <<
One might, if they’d ever shown they had even a shred of morals, courage, or decency. But since they’ve shown over and over again that they have absolutely none, they will NEVER pause to think about where they’re going, never turn away from their orange god.
I agree with this regarding the true cultists MAGA's but I still believe there are decent people deep down that could be moved by the reality of such insane extremism. Perhaps I'm naive.
I believe you're being naive. Anyone still supporting "exacerbating human misery, WW3-like expansionist dreams" has passed numerous off ramps and decided instead to keep on the MAGAt road. If they were a decent person they would have, if not renounced, at least stopped supporting Donny Convict and Republicans in general long ago. And yet, they keep defending and supporting them.
But they have not, nor will they. Not at this point. Not until he's shot himself in his bunker and even then it will only be out of a desire to not be held responsible for what they did that they'll deny they ever supported the Nazis, I mean , Republicans.
It ain’t Trump alone changing the conversation. After the election MAGA supporters on social media (the only place I’m willing to meet them alone) turned into gleeful unstoppable haters. It wasn’t enough to simply win and get on with life: these people went from defensive and annoying to full-on belligerent and threatening. Threatening your neighbours is not a good policy. It does not promote co-operation. Up here in Canada the pro-Trump crowd (a small rump of the population traditionally feeling abused by a majority who thinks Trump is a clownish, dangerous buffoon) have taken to calling themselves Maple MAGA. Immediately post election they became just as ecstatically bellicose as their southern fellow cult members but as the Trump threats and contempt for a long time ally has angered and insulted the vast majority of Canadians even the Maple MAGA loonies have begun to go silent. I must admit it is a big of a relief even as my blood pressure peaks every time the US Felon-in-Chief utters the word “Canada” out loud.
Well-written and tightly argued piece. Thanks for sharing. One quick comment in response to the article’s thesis.
It seems to work like this: if Trump is a leader of a bonafide political movement, then he will x, y and z to advance that movement. But he’s a’ing, b’ing and c’ing, and these are at odds with x’ing, y’ing and z’ing. So Trump isn’t the leader of a bonafide political movement. He’s something else—a cult leader, a grifter, a jailbird, etc (these are all actually mutually reinforcing, of course).
Fair enough. No disagreement from me. But I’d like just to emphasize how implausible the antecedent of the conditional in question really is.
Regardless of whether we can suss out contradictions between Trump’s governing philosophy and his putative political philosophy, I want to suggest that it’s so plainly obvious that he is not the leader (or endorser) of a political movement that arguing from conditional —> contradiction —> ~antecedent of conditional is unnecessary for the task at hand: diagnosing what the fuck is going on.
And what do I think that is? Startlingly simple: Trump ran season 2 to stay out of jail and avenge his enemies.
The entire campaign—eggs, immigrants, no taxes on tips, whatever—was a parade of fictions. In fact, this sheer unreality of the campaign suggests that we did not have an election at all (re: a competition of ideas and policies between two candidates for national leadership). We had a reality show. Trump was the protagonist. Kamala was the antagonist. Each day was a new episode evaluated on ratings. Plot twists were offered when ratings were low, plot thickening when they were high.
The story of Trump isn’t about a political leader grossly at odds with his own putative political philosophy. It’s the story of a made-only-in-America native-born huckster who has managed to dupe an electorally decisive number of Americans for the last ten years. Americans are so drunk on their own bath water that they’re unable to reliably decipher the very kind of huckster they should know better than anyone: the American conman who at once embodies and cheapens the American promise that anyone can be anything—the facts be damned.
The funny thing is, if you assume Trump is working on behalf of Russia to destroy American global influence all these actions make perfect sense. It doesn't mean Trump is consciously a Russian agent, but that Russia is quite good at using idiots in the MAGA world to push Trump in directions that favor Russia, just by flattering Trump's self-interest.
I'd love to see a sensible feasibility study of "Calexit". Unlike the insanity of Brexit, my snap judgement is that Calexit is at least viable, especially if Oregon and Washington came along for the ride. The Rockies are a natural border. Viable trading partners north and south with Canada and Mexico. Extensive maritime trading infrastructure already in place. An agricultural powerhouse. Pretty energy independent. Richer than half the other states combined. 2nd largest National Guard.
And if they could peel off Alaska at the same time... Hoo boy! Now you're talking! Hawaii would probably feel pretty isolated by that stage and see the writing on the wall and jump shop, too.
Fascinating to imagine what would happen if they all signed up to an EU style Single Market with free movement... 🤯🤯🤯
“Trump has accused Canada of taking advantage of the U.S. (confusing a trade deficit with a “subsidy” of some kind).”
Excellent newsletter, well done.
Actually though, I think he’s confusing the trade deficit with the current account deficit or what we can our deficit. And having a trade deficit with a country isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
We have trade deficits with many nations including China. It’s not the difference in America purchasing more goods and services than China buys from us. The trade deficit also includes capital outflows and inflows. Good economies attract foreign money. We are attracting more investment in America from overseas, than American capital is investing in overseas markets. And more capital inflows from overseas goes on the balance sheet as a liability.
So our economy is considered strong, while our competitors, and allies economies are either underperforming, or they are experiencing a recession.
Re Canada, Denmark, etc: this is Trump's rooster posturing. His fans know it and enjoy it for what it is. Note that Trump has not actually declared any actual tariffs so far.
Re: California: I live here. Republicans here have zero power already (less than 1/3 of either house in the state legislature). No one cares if they lose even more power. And in the most Republican areas of the state, which are rural and fire-prone, the people already blame the feds (that is Democrats) for fucking up land/fire management in the first place.
Just because his fans enjoy his bluster doesn't mean it makes him and the movement more powerful. The point is it doesn't help spread and keep the movement alive. This doesn't refute anything I said in the article.
And people will care if D.C. House Repubs from swing CA districts lose their seats due to his aggressive stance on CA, because it will put Dems right back in power of the Federal gov't. Look, if you think it's smart to outwardly alienate millions of Republicans from CA and also lose the U.S. House, so be it. Maybe you're right. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Greenland is not Trump posturing. Trump has been extremely belligerent and stubborn on this issue. He also is very good at smelling weakness in an opponent - the EU is actually in no position to defend Greenland, there is a strong likelihood they will cave and "sell" and Trump knows it. He will push and push and probably succeed. The long term damage to the US-European relationship will be substantial, but Trump won't care, he'll have "a win". And honestly he'll be dead or mentally incapacitated in a few years anyway, so I doubt he cares about long term damage.
I think you have to ask, is this Trump or the Heritage Foundation. Is this Trump or the rich billionaires. Is this Trump or....
I don't think you can attribute any kind of plan to Trump other than a lizard like self interest. The other factions of MAGA each have their own agenda so while one faction may be globalists another faction may be populist and yet another faction may be something else entirely. Maybe the leopards are eating the faces of whatever faction is in the weakest position and this will change from time to time as things progress.
Good points and true. But in the end, Trump is the figurehead. And whoever is directing MAGA policy right now not helping their cause by alienating and putting their supposed allies on defense.
Yes, if Trump was serious about creating a longer-term movement, he would have done those things. But if he’s a malignant narcissist with escalating dementia, as many of us think, he’s completely incapable of such a strategy. He is now the complete puppet of the oligarchs and Project 2025 puppeteers.
Mmmmmm but the thesis that Trump has a nationalist populist agenda he wants to spread is itself suspect. Instead Trump uses nationalist populist (& fundamentalist) notoons purely to gather personal power. "Fortress America", beset on all sides by enemies, w no allies, is exactly what he wants. His "allies" are personal: Putin, Urban, et al. "We have always been at war w EastAsia" is the desideratum.
But that wasn't the thesis. The Thesis was that he doesn't have an "agenda" that he wants to spread. But he could if he wanted, and has a great opportunity to do so. But he's blowing it and hastening his movement's demise in the process. Hence the leopard's own face metaphor.
We are agreed. He himself has not that agenda. His handlers purport to further that agenda. Hence the ambiguity of "Trumpism".
>> “If MAGA can lead to these things—exacerbating human misery, WW3-like expansionist dreams—one might ask themselves how they can keep supporting it.” <<
One might, if they’d ever shown they had even a shred of morals, courage, or decency. But since they’ve shown over and over again that they have absolutely none, they will NEVER pause to think about where they’re going, never turn away from their orange god.
I agree with this regarding the true cultists MAGA's but I still believe there are decent people deep down that could be moved by the reality of such insane extremism. Perhaps I'm naive.
I believe you're being naive. Anyone still supporting "exacerbating human misery, WW3-like expansionist dreams" has passed numerous off ramps and decided instead to keep on the MAGAt road. If they were a decent person they would have, if not renounced, at least stopped supporting Donny Convict and Republicans in general long ago. And yet, they keep defending and supporting them.
But they have not, nor will they. Not at this point. Not until he's shot himself in his bunker and even then it will only be out of a desire to not be held responsible for what they did that they'll deny they ever supported the Nazis, I mean , Republicans.
It ain’t Trump alone changing the conversation. After the election MAGA supporters on social media (the only place I’m willing to meet them alone) turned into gleeful unstoppable haters. It wasn’t enough to simply win and get on with life: these people went from defensive and annoying to full-on belligerent and threatening. Threatening your neighbours is not a good policy. It does not promote co-operation. Up here in Canada the pro-Trump crowd (a small rump of the population traditionally feeling abused by a majority who thinks Trump is a clownish, dangerous buffoon) have taken to calling themselves Maple MAGA. Immediately post election they became just as ecstatically bellicose as their southern fellow cult members but as the Trump threats and contempt for a long time ally has angered and insulted the vast majority of Canadians even the Maple MAGA loonies have begun to go silent. I must admit it is a big of a relief even as my blood pressure peaks every time the US Felon-in-Chief utters the word “Canada” out loud.
This definitely supports the thesis of this article. Thanks for sharing!
Well-written and tightly argued piece. Thanks for sharing. One quick comment in response to the article’s thesis.
It seems to work like this: if Trump is a leader of a bonafide political movement, then he will x, y and z to advance that movement. But he’s a’ing, b’ing and c’ing, and these are at odds with x’ing, y’ing and z’ing. So Trump isn’t the leader of a bonafide political movement. He’s something else—a cult leader, a grifter, a jailbird, etc (these are all actually mutually reinforcing, of course).
Fair enough. No disagreement from me. But I’d like just to emphasize how implausible the antecedent of the conditional in question really is.
Regardless of whether we can suss out contradictions between Trump’s governing philosophy and his putative political philosophy, I want to suggest that it’s so plainly obvious that he is not the leader (or endorser) of a political movement that arguing from conditional —> contradiction —> ~antecedent of conditional is unnecessary for the task at hand: diagnosing what the fuck is going on.
And what do I think that is? Startlingly simple: Trump ran season 2 to stay out of jail and avenge his enemies.
The entire campaign—eggs, immigrants, no taxes on tips, whatever—was a parade of fictions. In fact, this sheer unreality of the campaign suggests that we did not have an election at all (re: a competition of ideas and policies between two candidates for national leadership). We had a reality show. Trump was the protagonist. Kamala was the antagonist. Each day was a new episode evaluated on ratings. Plot twists were offered when ratings were low, plot thickening when they were high.
The story of Trump isn’t about a political leader grossly at odds with his own putative political philosophy. It’s the story of a made-only-in-America native-born huckster who has managed to dupe an electorally decisive number of Americans for the last ten years. Americans are so drunk on their own bath water that they’re unable to reliably decipher the very kind of huckster they should know better than anyone: the American conman who at once embodies and cheapens the American promise that anyone can be anything—the facts be damned.
The funny thing is, if you assume Trump is working on behalf of Russia to destroy American global influence all these actions make perfect sense. It doesn't mean Trump is consciously a Russian agent, but that Russia is quite good at using idiots in the MAGA world to push Trump in directions that favor Russia, just by flattering Trump's self-interest.
https://www.kingdonaldthefirst.com/
I'd love to see a sensible feasibility study of "Calexit". Unlike the insanity of Brexit, my snap judgement is that Calexit is at least viable, especially if Oregon and Washington came along for the ride. The Rockies are a natural border. Viable trading partners north and south with Canada and Mexico. Extensive maritime trading infrastructure already in place. An agricultural powerhouse. Pretty energy independent. Richer than half the other states combined. 2nd largest National Guard.
And if they could peel off Alaska at the same time... Hoo boy! Now you're talking! Hawaii would probably feel pretty isolated by that stage and see the writing on the wall and jump shop, too.
Fascinating to imagine what would happen if they all signed up to an EU style Single Market with free movement... 🤯🤯🤯
He's a lunatic, a grifter, and a symptom not a driver. But the broader vibe shift is real.
“Trump has accused Canada of taking advantage of the U.S. (confusing a trade deficit with a “subsidy” of some kind).”
Excellent newsletter, well done.
Actually though, I think he’s confusing the trade deficit with the current account deficit or what we can our deficit. And having a trade deficit with a country isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
We have trade deficits with many nations including China. It’s not the difference in America purchasing more goods and services than China buys from us. The trade deficit also includes capital outflows and inflows. Good economies attract foreign money. We are attracting more investment in America from overseas, than American capital is investing in overseas markets. And more capital inflows from overseas goes on the balance sheet as a liability.
So our economy is considered strong, while our competitors, and allies economies are either underperforming, or they are experiencing a recession.
Either way, Trump is an imbecile….:)
So much cope! Sad!
Re Canada, Denmark, etc: this is Trump's rooster posturing. His fans know it and enjoy it for what it is. Note that Trump has not actually declared any actual tariffs so far.
Re: California: I live here. Republicans here have zero power already (less than 1/3 of either house in the state legislature). No one cares if they lose even more power. And in the most Republican areas of the state, which are rural and fire-prone, the people already blame the feds (that is Democrats) for fucking up land/fire management in the first place.
Try again, it'll be fun!
Just because his fans enjoy his bluster doesn't mean it makes him and the movement more powerful. The point is it doesn't help spread and keep the movement alive. This doesn't refute anything I said in the article.
And people will care if D.C. House Repubs from swing CA districts lose their seats due to his aggressive stance on CA, because it will put Dems right back in power of the Federal gov't. Look, if you think it's smart to outwardly alienate millions of Republicans from CA and also lose the U.S. House, so be it. Maybe you're right. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Greenland is not Trump posturing. Trump has been extremely belligerent and stubborn on this issue. He also is very good at smelling weakness in an opponent - the EU is actually in no position to defend Greenland, there is a strong likelihood they will cave and "sell" and Trump knows it. He will push and push and probably succeed. The long term damage to the US-European relationship will be substantial, but Trump won't care, he'll have "a win". And honestly he'll be dead or mentally incapacitated in a few years anyway, so I doubt he cares about long term damage.