Author: Ron Davis

Posted on

Ed Luce: Trump’s “Genius is to Keep Pushing the Democrats Into a Reactive Defence of the Status Quo”

Ed Luce of the Financial Times writes,

America has a conservative establishment. Its formal name is the Democratic party. Whether it be the federal government, universities, welfare or the regulatory state, Democrats fight to preserve the world as it is or was. “America is already great,” liberals cry, which is another way of saying that things were fine until Donald Trump came along. Their lodestar was Joe Biden, who personified nostalgia. Much of the party is now nostalgic for Biden. You have to be imprisoned in old ways of thinking to believe this is how US liberalism will rebound.

An invigorated US opposition would now be making hay. Trump’s team maintains a “promises kept” tally sheet. To be sure, he has in effect closed the border, demolished DEI quota culture, assaulted the deep state and launched trade wars against the rest of the world. But a big chunk of those who voted for Maga saw these moves as the means of lifting their economic prospects. The opposite is happening, which is why Trump’s numbers are in steady decline. Yet the fall in Democrats’ approval rating is even steeper. In relative terms, Trump’s political dominance has thus grown. Do not bet on a weakening economy changing that picture.

Trump’s genius is to keep pushing Democrats into reactive conservatism. That, plus the average age of the party’s leadership, makes Democrats look like permanently outraged grandparents. Trump’s assaults on pretty much every constitutional norm are indeed terrifying and outrageous. But they are remarkably inoculated against political backlash. To all intents and purposes, opposition to Trump has been reduced to a default outrage machine.

What is the solution? Democrats are a party of America’s professional elites plus various interest groups. And given that Trump won a majority of blue-collar voters, they are no longer the natural home of the working class. Any Democratic recovery would thus start by grappling with the latter’s worldview. The practical difficulty is that the party is shaped by elite professions, particularly law, government, media and academia. Such types often have a hard time concealing their distaste for those who voted for Trump. This is a poor starting point.  

Democrats also face a deeper philosophical problem. Nobody knows how to reinvent 20th-century liberalism. In the US that was Franklin D Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal, with updates over the next couple of generations. FDR built that world with “bold persistent experimentation”. His would-be heirs are stuck in a timid, persistent conservatism. They do not “welcome the hatred” of financial and business monopolists as Roosevelt did. They are the party of corporate America. No party in history could ever boast of so many expert fundraisers and humane philanthropists.

Lack of fresh ideas and cloistered demography are definitions of conservatism. If Trump did not exist, would Democrats want to reform the US administrative state? They should want to reinvent it but are now its militant defenders. A system that is so riddled with veto points that it takes years to execute simple projects and requires a PhD to navigate the tax system does not deserve to be defended. The same goes for a housing market that has priced younger voters out of the American dream and elite universities that are biased towards the children of alumni and donors. If Trump is attacking something, it must be defended to the hilt.

That Trump’s actions are destructive is no excuse. As political scientist Ruy Teixeira recently warned, Democrats are placing their chips on the “fool’s gold of midterm success”. Rather than seeking ways of reinventing a system in which America has lost faith, Democrats are betting on Trump’s defeat in next year’s congressional elections. The odds are that Republicans will lose the House of Representatives in 2026 and retain control of the Senate. Such midterm success would be a pyrrhic victory for Democrats. Biden based his 2024 re-election bid on his party’s relative success in the 2022 midterms. Look where that led.

A second piece of fool’s gold is to wait for Trumpism to die out with Trump. Even assuming that he does not launch a coup in 2028, Democrats would be unwise to think their problem will end with Trump. Familiarity with other democracies — Britain’s clueless Labour party, Germany’s moribund Social Democrats, France’s withered Socialists — shows that there is nothing unique to American populism.

The challenge for Democrats is to do what they should be doing were Trump not to exist. His superpower is to stop them from reaching that epiphany. 

Posted on

Explaining the Inexplicable: Some Further Observations

This follows up on the immediately preceding post.

So here’s some food for thought. Most major corporate CEOs have a corporate jet, and they have a pilot for that corporate jet. What qualities would a CEO look for in a pilot?

Would they want a person who cannot accurately acquire and process information about the weather?

Would they want to hire a pilot who does not understand the relation between his actions and the consequences of his actions?

Would they like a pilot who, when she makes a mistake, belligerently hallucinates falsehoods to explain away the facts—like some out-of-control chatbot, powered by runaway Artificial UnIntelligence?

Would the CEO want a person suffering from malignant narcissism—imagining himself to be the best pilot in the country, indeed, the best pilot who has ever lived, so capable that flying his jet through a hurricane is no cause for concern?

If the answer to these questions is no—and the answer surely is no—then why would the same corporate CEO be happy to hire a pilot for the nation who suffers from the same mental handicaps?

The Answer to My Rhetorical Question

The views of the Financial Times opinion writer are insightful, but let me add this. 

We are talking about Fortune 500 CEOs, whose average compensation runs to about $17 million a year. A lot of these folks are not addicted to heroin, but they are addicted to money. 

Just as a heroin-addicted paterfamilias will take the children’s milk money to spend it on a drug, so also a money-addicted person will optimize money making over considerations of common sense, not to mention considerations of empathy or morality. 

Compare Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack didn’t go to college, but, still, he should have known enough to conclude that it was unwise to reelect Trump. When Joe Sixpack gets hurt by the tariffs and by the inflation resulting from mass deportation, he will be getting no more and no less than he deserves. I hope Joe learns from the terrible lesson he’s about to receive. 

All that said, the greater responsibility falls on our country’s economic and intellectual elite. 

Well and truly has it been noted that a fish rots from the head down. 

Posted on

The Financial Times Explains the Inexplicable

Gillian Tett (Financial Times), The psychology of CEO loyalty to Trump: C-suites are conspicuously silent in the face of the president’s policy surprises: 

A couple of weeks ago, a story emerged in Washington that was likely to make any chief executive officer shudder: according to Axios, the White House has created a secret “loyalty rating” chart ranking 553 companies and business groups on whether they display “low”, “moderate” or “strong” support for the policies enshrined in Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill.

Initially, Trump’s team did not comment on the story, although the White House has since confirmed that the scorecard — on which groups such as Delta, Door Dash and Uber are reportedly rated highly — does exist.

But what is perhaps most notable in all this is the lack of any visible business reaction. After all, using “loyalty rankings” as a basis for policy dealings is certainly not an American norm; on the contrary, it seems to underscore that the administration has scant respect for the concept of a universal “rule of law”.

That should worry any business. So should the uncertainty about Trump’s tariff policies,deportations and regulatory upheaval. But few executives have criticised the president in public so far, even as constitutional lawyers howl. And when I recently participated in different private roundtables with executives and investors, there was little private criticism either. Fealty and silence is the new norm. 

Why? If I were to put America’s C-suite on the metaphorical couch right now, I would point to at least five factors. The first — and most obvious — is fear and greed: CEOs are terrified of incurring Trump’s wrath if they oppose him, and most seem convinced they can arbitrage his policies to their own advantage, due to deregulation and/or their links with the White House. This is why “loyalty lists” matter.

A second factor is partisan politics. According to Gallup, just 1 per cent of Democrats approve of Trump’s job performance, while 93 per cent of Republicans do — equalling the biggest split since this survey started in 1979. Since business leaders skew Republican, and tend to dislike progressive politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, this split matters. 

In addition, there are three other more subtle, and less noticed, factors at work too. One is that it seems that Trump’s “shocking” policies are starting to lose their ability to shock the C-suite quite as much as before. 

Blame this, if you like, on the fact that we are now in Trump’s second term, and on a widespread embrace of the “Taco” thesis — that the US president always chickens out of his wildest threats. Moreover, business leaders have faced a series of once-unimaginable shocks in recent years, including the global financial crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. So CEO cognitive resilience has grown — and perhaps complacency has too.  

A fourth factor is “animal spirits”, to cite John Maynard Keynes. Economists have always assumed that if businesses expressed public optimism, investors would feel the same. This still holds true: the fact American companies are currently beating earnings forecasts has helped to propel stocks to record highs. 

However, the causality is now also working in reverse: it is hard for any corporate leader to express alarm about the outlook, or criticism of Trump, when markets seem so giddily exuberant. A form of crowd psychology is at work that few CEOs dare defy. 

Last but not least, there is the issue of artificial intelligence. A host of executives and investors seem to love Trump’s policies on AI, most notably because he is deregulating it under the mantra of boosting growth — an idea that appeals to American executives increasingly scornful of what they see as Europe’s low-growth, regulation-heavy model. 

However, there is another implication of the AI boom: it is enabling CEOs to talk to their investors about business uncertainty without ever needing to mention Trump’s name at all. 

More bluntly, AI is the ultimate distraction device for the C-suite, since it is now absorbing so much executive headspace and public airtime that there is less space to think about other issues, such as the uglier side of Trump’s policies. It gobbles up bandwidth, literally and metaphorically. 

Now, I daresay there will be readers who might disagree with this five-part explanation. Some business leaders genuinely love Trump’s policies, and think they will unleash long-term growth.

But if you think this five-part frame is even halfway accurate, then the key thing to ponder is whether anything might cause the psychology to change. If markets tumble, AI becomes less distracting or tariffs crush earnings, could there be a backlash? Or if Europe recovers, might that take the shine off Trump?

Right now, we don’t know. But what is clear is that it is a fool’s errand to think American CEOs will spark an anti-Trump rebellion anytime soon. That White House “loyalty list” has already done its job.

Posted on

This is America, Where You Can Do Anything with Your Body Unless There is a Uterus in It

Alexandra Petri, writing in The Atlantic:

Florida Decided There Were Too Many Children: The state’s elimination of vaccine mandates is a courageous first step toward decluttering itself of any excess kids.

Sorry. We decided there were too many children.

You know how it goes.

Their hands are too small. Sometimes they are sticky, and no one knows why. They say they’re eating their dinner, but you can see that they are just pushing it around on their plate. They come up to you on the sidewalk and tell you their whole life story for 10 minutes, wearing face paint from a birthday party three days ago. Some afternoons they announce that they are sharks, but they are obviously not sharks. They do this over and over again.

And the state of Florida, understandably, said: Enough. This needs to stop. We have decided that there are too many children, and we can let some of them go. Or, as the state’s surgeon general put it when he eliminated all vaccine mandates yesterday: “Who am I as a government or anyone else, who am I as a man standing here now, to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in [their] body? I don’t have that right.”

(That relaxed attitude about bodily autonomy comes as something of a surprise, given the state’s six-week abortion ban, but this is America, where you can do anything with your body unless there’s a uterus in it.)

Florida is the first state to take the courageous step toward decluttering itself of excess children, but under the inexpert guidance of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., other states may follow. If we lose herd immunity, we will bring back diseases that had formerly been eliminated, and some children who would otherwise have been protected will perish. But no price is too high to pay in this pointless war against decades of lifesaving science. Confusingly, this effort is being taken up at the same time that people are Very Concerned about dropping birth rates, but it makes sense when you understand that they don’t like the children we currently have. They want us to make other ones instead.

This is certainly one possible response to the epidemic of mass shootings: unleash another epidemic on our elementary schools. If I had to guess what kind of shot we would make sure schoolchildren got, I would have guessed wrong. I am always guessing wrong. I am always guessing that we want children to live.

Posted on

Redistricting: Team Red Can’t Find Its Ass with Both Hands

I’ll leave the fine details to the experts, but here is the gist. If Team Red—or, of course, Team Blue—finds itself with a lot of extremely safe congressional districts, the partisan redistricting may be accomplished by spreading out those partisan voters, so that the team has somewhat fewer safe seats and a larger number of seats that it’s going to win by, say, only five percent or so. 

That works just fine if you can accurately predict which way the political win will be blowing, come next election. But what happens if the political wind starts blowing against you? 

If, let’s say, the wind unexpectedly blows against you—let’s say by seven percent in favor of Team Blue—then your bunch of five percent wins turn into a bunch of two percent losses. And you have well and truly shot yourself in the foot. 

You will recognize this situation as a corollary of the general rule that the straight edge ruler is not your best tool for short term and long term planning.

Down in Texas, Team Red—having partaken generously of Trump’s Kool-Aid—thinks that Orange Man’s popularity in the Lone Star State will continue from strength. In particular, they think the Latino community is overjoyed by the ICE arrests, and will reward Mango Mussolini in 2026 by increasing their support in congressional districts bordering on the Rio Grande. 

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, His Most High Excellency has declared today that he will order his “Justice Department” to sue California for retaliatory redistricting on the part of Team Blue.

The Very Stable Genius did not, however, articulate a coherent legal principle that would condemn Team Blue in California while, at the same time, blessing Team Red’s efforts in Texas.

Posted on

Trump in Hell

N.Y. Times, ‘I Want to Try and Get to Heaven’: Trump Gets Reflective on ‘Fox & Friends’

The exact quote is, “I want to try and get to heaven, if possible. I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to heaven, this [a peace deal for Ukraine] will be one of the reasons.”

Does the Archangel Michael Have Trump’s Cellphone?

The Times asks an excellent question:

This fear of perdition raised some questions. Chief among them: Who, exactly, has been informing the president that he is “not doing well” with regard to kingdom come? Did Michael the Archangel somehow get Mr. Trump’s cellphone number?

Your Chances of Getting into the Christian Heaven? Not Lookin’ Good, Donnie.

You know, Orange Man, the Gospel of Matthew is pretty damn specific about who’s a sheep and who’s a goat. 

And, Donnie, you, sir, are a goat. (And that definitely doesn’t mean Greatest of All Time.)

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me. I was sick, and ye visited me. I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink.I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.

And, Guess What, Donnie, You’re Also Going to Secular Hell for Megalomaniacs

And what, pray tell, is secular hell for megalomaniacs? I will answer my own rhetorical question. Secular hell for megalomaniacs is a fixed, enduring, well known and well established historical reputation for evil, vaingloriousness, inability to assess the relevant facts of a situation, inability to predict the consequences of your actions, refusal to recognize and accept good counsel, always valuing loyalty over competence, not recognizing the truth when it bites your own butt, and a love of performative cruelty. 

Donnie, you and I are both 79 years old. We both graduated from an Ivy League university in 1968. AI tells us that deaths per year for 1968 Ivy League grads begin to reach their peak in our late 70s and early 80s.

Some, based on observation of your physical condition, your behavior, and your beginning to muse—in your own illiterate way—about the afterlife, ask, “Is Trump dying?”

Well, guess what, Donnie? Yeah, you’re dying. Maybe not next week. Maybe not next year. But you’re well on the way to your final reward.

And know this.

In future decades, in future centuries, for ages and ages to come, world without end, your name will be a byword.

It will be a byword for megalomania.

It will be a byword for wilful, pigheaded ignorance.

It will be a byword for joyous performative cruelty. 

You will be a poster child for the President of the United States who possessed not a single character trait that made him worthy of his high office. 

Posted on

Any Suggestions on How to Wean His Most High Excellency Off His Idiotic Desire for a Nobel Peace Prize?

Clearly, he wants the Peace Prize so much that Putin can twist him around his middle finger.

Some thoughts that come to mind:

Maybe the Heritage Foundation, joined with the Southern Baptist Convention, could name him the International Prince of Peace.

Or the Council on Foreign Relations could award him the Annual Prize for Creative Diplomatic Strategy—commenting that Obama never won this prize, which clearly proves Trump is twice the man Obama is. 

Or perhaps the best idea of all: Harvard could give him an honorary Ph.D in Foreign PolicyThinkology.