Questions and answers
An Ask Me Anything post
And we’re off …
Fr. Isaac Bradshaw
Do you see Trumpism as forming a long-lasting political tradition in the US (a la Peronism) or a force that declines without Trump as the gravitational "pull" for the reactionary right?
I was asked this in both Morocco (Huawei) and Turkey (journalism conference) years ago, during the early days of Trump 1.0, and I was dismissive — and wrong. I felt like the gonzo economics (tariffs) of it all would crash and burn or at least make it so we didn’t touch that hot surface again for a good long stretch. Those “trade wars” didn’t do enough damage to the economy Trump inherited and then COVID superseded all, tapping into, and turbo-charging, all that anti-government sentiment so that even four years of Biden playing FDR could not assuage.
And so we have Trump 2.0 now and everything feels uncharted. So, naturally, I am wary of discounting the movement again — especially as it enjoys such strong independent-voter support — for now.
So, a constitutional crisis by any reasonable person’s description? Yes. How do we all feel about an enlarged, imperial (again) presidency four years from now? Great uncertainty there, determined largely by economic vibes as they shift.
Right now everybody feels so much more on edge and even aroused by all this Trump smash activity that the positive economic payoff better be there by the 2026 midterms or social anger and anxiety is only to get that much more intense and internecine (the search for scapegoats and enemies within). Trump 2.0 is already so Nixon Second Term in its general antagonism with its vast army of critics that it’s hard to imagine any kumbaya dynamics emerging to smooth things out so long as Trump remains in power.
But, even if Trumpism goes down swinging (2026-2028), I expect the nativist White Christian nationalism to be around for a couple of decades — or until the mid-2040s demographic tipping point is reached and the fight for White privilege (picking up steam now) is played out.
That’s my glass half-empty.
Half-full says Trump is sui generis and much dissipates when he dies. Ditto for Putin. Personality cults cannot survive the personality leaving.
Michael Moran
Is there a tipping point where moderate Trump supporters begin to defect and what might be the issue that is a bridge too far for them?
Trump created such expectations for economic revival and he’s sustaining that suspended disbelief among independents right now with the whole flood-the-zone bit (activity symbolizing progress or at least its attempt).
Jump ahead to year’s end and inflation is spiking and maybe housing feels that much more vulnerable for that many more people (if only the insurance!) and there’s this growing awareness of government collapse from all the purging (Where’s my tax refund? to cite only the tip of that iceberg) and it feels like the whole world is lined up against us on tariffs … and that’s going to be ugly enough to peel off the — for now — thrilled middle that clings to the hope that all this damage will yield something so much better.
With Musk doing another Twitter on the USG, we have reached the epitome of trying to run government like a business. To me, Trump 1.0 showed he was just another Hoover, but, magic man that he is, he credibly earned another bite at that apple. Still, I remain convinced that Hoover 2.0 is more likely than MAGA realized. We’re just swimming against too many structural tides right now that I don’t think the Tech Bros can pull a rabbit out of their hats fast enough to surmount the wider self-destruction.
I would love to be wrong for everyone’s sake.
So, I’ll be waiting on the midterms. Like every other election since 2006, they’ll be the most important election in our lifetime!
I know, exhausting right?
Kevin Moore
you're King for a day, or Trump (same difference). if you could / must cut defense over the five year plan, by 10% average per year - what would you cut and with what rationale?
Military spending and force structure planning are the two great transformational targets that I can support whole-heartedly under Trump 2.0. To me, the lessons learned in Ukraine are deeply confirming of the network-centric warfare movement going back to 1995 and reaching clear proof today.
Anybody being impressed by China’s conventional or even strategic military buildup is missing the point: we have crossed over into the Military Singularity or the post-human battlespace. End-strength (bodies) no longer matters and all that 25-years-in-the-developing stuff is gone, gone, gone.
Today’s battlespace moves at the speed of AI and requires on-demand force structuring, meaning LockMart out and Anduril in (until bought by LockMart, which I wouldn’t advocate for many, many years).
So, if you put the budgetary gun to my head, I am radically reducing personnel, cutting back on conventional platform procurement (ending much of it), and going all in on the “drone hellscape” vision that, to me, signals the end of the utility of conventional warfare for territorial gain — something that arrives just as America abandons that Leviathan role.
Does all that sound ever so Musk-ian?
Yeah, it does.
Jeffrey Itell
Since you can't beat something with nothing, what will be the broad shape of the reform movement that begins to take shape? (Bonus: In which state will the reform movement emerge?)
My assumption all along has been that it starts in healthcare reform. As a target of great angst for the average American, it’s hard to beat. So many households are just one bad medical crisis away from bankruptcy, and then there’s the draining-of-family-wealth that comes in the last months of a life medically sustained past the point of anybody’s definition of good living.
We are on the cusp of a biotech revolution, with the whole weight-reduction drugs being a harbinger: 3/4ths of Americans overweight and they now have a drug to erase that issue and only the rich can afford?
Multiply that dynamic by any number of other breakthrough therapies and our definition of healthcare as a human right is going to explode into its own political reform movement.
Even with climate change coming on, I see healthcare as the logical inflection point, because the perceived injustice of it all is so profound.
As for states, expect Blue to lead and Red to learn. The default is to cite California but Massachusetts is probably the one to watch (but I may be biased for having lived there).
Gerard
In the event that the United States integrates with Canada—however that might potentially look moving forward—what do you think the obstacles and fallout would be in trying to absorb a nation that would likely be very resentful, especially given that current U.S. policy seems to rely entirely on stick rather then carrot.
To date, all Trump has done is put the idea of the deal on the table. What has he offered? Nothing, really.
So there’s zero chance of pulling this off in a friendly East-Germany-joins-West-Germany fashion so long as it’s just jibes and threats and bluster and trade wars.
But credit Trump with putting the idea out there. The logic — long term — is supremely sound, and that’s why 4-outta-10 younger Canadians polled (recent cite by me in last Sunday cutdown) see this as both inevitable and not so bad.
But it has to be a total carrot package for both Canada and Greenland if you’re buying, because then you’re purchasing a lot of long-term wealth and the locals will need to be personally compensated (however funneled and bureaucratized).
Right now we’re signaling only a hostile takeover. If we want to succeed eventually, we need to make it a “liquidity event” like when a start-up is purchased by an established giant and every one on the payroll is instantly richer or more financially secure.
Don McCue
In rethinking globalization rulesets, how can U.S. states contribute to setting industry standards and regulatory frameworks that not only attract international investment but also safeguard domestic industries and labor rights?
Great question I won’t pretend I can answer off the top of my head.
But here I go anyway:
To me, California has always been the trend-setter on this, something it can pull off because it’s a de facto top-ten national economy in the world all by itself.
Likewise, having 50 states compete in such experiments … also a huge plus.
As for direct vectors …
We saw a lot of states getting pretty damn progressive during the COVID crisis, so, if Trump is gutting the USG, then it’ll be up to the states to step up big-time in terms of extending labor protections and attracting FDI. As the USG is likely to be severely hobbled for the near and medium term, I would expect to see progressive states form compacts within their US ranks — almost like the mutual-aid constructs long pursued by SE states WRT hurricane response and recovery.
That could lead to a lot of “sectionalism,” a word that defined a lot of American economic history up to our post-Civil War rapid rise (our internal globalization/networking movement and moment), which, at first blush, is going to feel like we’re going backwards, but it won’t be. Our strength is in our numbers and the capacity for some states to lead by successful example.
Both Abbott (TX) and Newsom (CA) feel like they have the answer for 2028, as will others. With all this breakage unfolding right now, there will arise a profound impetus for “fixing things” and so examples of local success will be touted as the way ahead.
Personally, I would be amazed if ANYBODY who is DC-centric in their political identity (senators, representatives, cabinet vets, former/current veep, etc.) could take the White House in 2028. Biden poisoned that well for some length of time, IMO.
Daan van Zanten
With all the current developments, what is your view how the EU could successfully navigate the next couple of years of turbulence?
Stand up to Trump, stand up to Xi, stand up to Putin … and continue to champion the rules-based world order as worthwhile.
Shitty job, but SOMEBODY has to do it right now.
The US stood up and protected Europe for decades, now it’s time for Europe to return the favor during America’s fit of populist pique.
To me, the EU standing firm and not losing it’s cool and accepting all the load-shedding that America is pushing right now … it’s the equivalent of Churchill’s Britain holding out nearly by itself against the Nazi military might in 1940-41. I see this as the Union’s “greatest hour.”
So, basically, keep calm and carry on.
Trey White
My personal opinion is that many sub stack authors' posts are on average too long, yours included. Have you considered writing shorter pieces (folks are pretty busy, trying to absorb lots of perspectives etc., Paul Krugman seems to go shorter for example in his new stack). thx.
If I made enough money on Substack for this to be my primary income, I would put in the extra time to shorten stuff. As a rule, it is far easier to write 2,000 words than 200.
Plus, like my old blog, to me, this is a workspace that I leave open to the public. It’s like I’m a craftsman working my antique machinery and you’ve paid admission to the museum/industrial park and you get to watch me blow glass and maybe buy some (or throw some dollars into my tip jar). If you want it fast and packaged, check out the souvenir shops instead.
But, I take your point, and I would love to address it. I just would need a lot more subscribers for me to put in that level of effort.
Someday … but not right now. My income streams are just too contingency-based right now.
Matthew Conrad
What power (if any) do you see individual states wielding to adapt to both climate change and global market-playing realignment in the absence of coherent federal leadership?
Per my answer above (experimentation, sectional aggregation), I say, watch for states seeking to implement their own foreign policies, like Newsom and Abbott and DeSantis so flagrantly do, likewise by setting their own more stringent standards (be they progressive or regressive).
So … states as intermediaries that step in to provide local climate-adaptation support that the USG is no longer able and willing to provide. Clumps of US states cutting their own deals with neighboring states or distant trading partners.
I’m not informed enough to provide details. I’ll just say that we should expect state leaders to step up quite a bit as Trump disables and disarms the federal bureaucracy. I would expect Blue states to lead and Red states to learn — the hard way. But, either way, a period of great state and local government experimentation. There’s not going to be less government, just less nationalized government. We’ve spent years now trying to manage needed change and reform by nationalizing every G.D. political issue there is. That eventually got us Trump to force the issue by destroying the USG.
Now, Red states will have to finally reveal to their citizens just how low they are willing to go on safety nets and that will be ugly. But it will also highlight the relative success of Blue states that behave in a more European, social-welfare manner.
Selling the “law of the jungle” only gets you so far with populism. Eventually, genuine solutions must emerge or the Union comes apart.
John J. Brown
Given the facts we have today (Trump admin), what is the best course of action for our institutions to take, to weather this storm?
Radical acceptance of the challenges we face with both demographics and climate change, understanding that an every-person-for-themselves approach will beggar us all. The private sector stands at the precipice of a long period of extreme experimentation and adaptation and reform and leadership in technological advances. The public sector is light years behind and — to date — has really only managed to start cannibalizing itself via Trump 2.0.
What will we all learn by this?
The nations that best handle globalization do so very pro-actively. They are strong states with big-time reach. They are not haters of big government and they do not demonize the state or bureaucrats.
America is having a fit of populist pique right now and we will be forced to learn from it. We’re acting like the USG is some internal boogeyman like we now view globalization (and globalists) internationally. It’s all so childish in many ways, but fits of pique are how democracies arouse themselves to later action.
As for institutions outside of government that traditionally bridge the gap between what society needs and what the government can manage … private philanthropy will loom large, as it did in the segue from our Gilded Age to our Progressive Era. This is where the Gates (WHO) and Bloombergs (Paris Accord) of the world become important amidst the rising power of cut-throat oligarchs — to include our own rat-bastards.
Good stuff thx.