By Nick Catoggio
Friday, April 04, 2025
The most poignant comment I’ve seen about the president’s
groin-punch
to the U.S. economy came from his secretary of state. During a visit to
NATO headquarters in Brussels on Friday, Marco Rubio told reporters,
“We’re not the government of the world now.”
He said it triumphantly, I assume, which is part of what
makes it poignant. In an alternate universe where ambition hasn’t rotted his
brain, Sen. Marco Rubio is saying the same thing today, verbatim, about the
first two-and-a-half months of Donald Trump’s second presidency. But his tone
is entirely different.
Being the government of the world worked out okay for America,
not to mention the world. Rubio circa 2016 would have been eloquent on that
point. But he chose instead to be a cymbal-banging monkey for Trump, so now
he’s required to say inane things about the nationalist
virtues of immense wealth destruction.
Still, he’s right: We’re not the government of the world
anymore. Which is also poignant if you’re a child of the Cold War like I am.
Before January 20, even a Trump doomsayer like me would
have doubted that the president could do so much damage as to end the unipolar
global order in 75 days, but he’s done it.
America is considerably weaker economically and diplomatically than it was as
recently as three months ago, and entirely by design. No crisis has been
foisted on Trump in that period to make diminution inevitable, either. He’s
chosen it freely, one needless groin-punch after another.
It’s indistinguishable from sabotage.
Comparisons
have already begun between Trump’s trade war and George W. Bush’s Iraq war,
which is unfair to both men. Trump’s war won’t have a body count (not directly,
anyway) while Bush’s war wasn’t as comprehensively strategically indefensible.
But the similarities are obvious: In each case, a Republican president gambled
his party’s and his country’s credibility on a dubious ideological hobby horse
that portended enormous human misery. It didn’t work out great for Bush’s GOP. Stay
tuned.
The analogy got me thinking, though. Are there any
silver linings to the dumbest trade war in history? There aren’t many from the
Iraq war, but you can find a few if you look. Iraq’s new democracy has endured.
Saddam Hussein and his lunatic sons were liquidated, sparing the world from
whatever future calamities they would have instigated. And Americans learned a
painful lesson about the limits of military power that may have averted other,
even more painful U.S. misadventures abroad.
There must likewise be some upsides to Trump lighting
American preeminence and millions of retirement accounts on fire, no? And
indeed, there are.
Backlash upon backlash.
One silver lining is that public support for free trade
will grow.
It happened during Trump’s first term. When he was
elected in 2016, 58 percent of Americans told
Gallup that they viewed foreign trade as an opportunity for economic growth
versus 34 percent who regarded it as a threat to the U.S. economy. Within a
year, that split had widened to 72-23. In 2020, it reached 79-18, the largest
gap Gallup had recorded to that point in nearly 30 years of asking. Nothing
made voters more enthusiastic about cheap foreign goods, it seems, than having
to live with a president who wanted to make them more expensive.
Last month, with Trump back in office, Gallup asked the
question again and found 81 percent of respondents in favor of free
trade, a jump of 20 points since 2024 and another new record. In other words, a
sharp backlash to the new president’s policies was in motion even before
“Liberation Day.” Imagine what the numbers will look like the next time Gallup
asks, now that Americans have experienced Trump
juche in full flower.
Views of free trade tend to wax and wane depending on
which party is in office, but the shock of this fiasco might put voters off of
protectionism durably, the same way Iraq has with respect to major Middle
Eastern wars. And that might come in handy as the damage from Trump’s
presidency inevitably radicalizes some liberals: A Democrat elected on a wave
of left-wing populism who’s tempted to experiment with juche himself
will look long and hard at those Gallup numbers before doing so.
Another silver lining is that Congress might be moved to
start reclaiming
some of its powers from Trump.
Might. Don’t get your hopes up. The smart money
says it won’t happen unless Democrats regain control next year. If things get
so bad before then that even gutless congressional Republicans feel pressured
to act, it will only be because they’ve exhausted every excuse to avoid doing
so. From Politico:
“I think most members on our side
are very willing to give the president time,” Arkansas Sen. John Boozman said,
summing up the view of many GOP lawmakers who might have qualms about Trump’s
massive new levies but showed little interest—at least for now and the near
future—in doing anything concrete to restrain him.
…
One senior Republican aide, granted
anonymity to describe the dynamics inside the party, said GOP lawmakers were
prepared to give Trump “several months” at the very least. “Everyone is
terrified,” the aide said. “But I don’t think anyone wants to cross the
president right now.”
Forced to choose between your financial security and
their electoral security, the right’s quisling leadership class will choose
itself every time—for now. But there is, in theory, a point at which the two
interests might align. If the economy topples into recession and Trump’s
approval rating crashes into the low 30s, with his “soft” supporters abandoning him en
masse, running as an anti-tariff conservative in a GOP primary might become
marginally less risky than running as an anti-anti-tariff Trumpist in a general
election.
But even then, I admit, it’s hard to imagine Republicans
mustering the dignity to pass legislation ending Trump’s abuse of his tariff
powers. The most we can realistically hope for from them is convincing him to
lift the tariffs of his own accord before the midterms. “Would you rather do it
yourself, Mr. President, or would you prefer to have the new House and Senate
Democratic majorities do it for you?”
American decline.
A third silver lining of the new trade war isn’t so
lustrous. Wednesday was the final proof, if more was needed, that Americans are
no longer fit to lead the free world.
The greatest threat to liberalism is Chinese
totalitarianism; containing and defeating it is the foreign policy challenge of
the century for Western nations. There is no way around the fact that a people
capable of electing Donald Trump twice, once after he attempted a coup, are not
up to that challenge intellectually,
civically, or morally. “The American age is over,” Jonathan Last argued on Thursday.
“And it ended because the American people were no longer worthy of it.”
That’s correct. There’s too much rot in the American
character to believe that our country can sustain the will, clarity, or cunning
to defeat an enemy as formidable as modern China. On the contrary, from
threatening near-abroad satellites like Greenland to pointlessly offending
allies like Canada to declaring a global trade war that will isolate the United
States, Trump in his first 75 days has done more to strengthen Beijing than any
president in decades.
Moronic, groin-punching American authoritarianism will
not solve Chinese totalitarianism. The silver lining of “Liberation Day” is
that the whole world understands that now and can proceed accordingly. If the
West is to avoid eastern hegemony, Europe will need to take the lead—the
sooner, the better. Frankly, the way things are going, there’s a nonzero chance
that the United States will eventually end up on the other side.
But if that’s too glum, here’s another silver lining to
cheer you up. Watching MAGA diehards spitball theories to explain why an
economic meltdown is Ackshually Good will be hilarious for us all, providing
welcome entertainment in the grim months and years to come.
In fact, it’s already begun. Much of the initial cope
over the last 48 hours has unwittingly replicated Biden-era Democratic excuses
for inflation. Remember how that was supposed to be “transitory” but
wasn’t? No worries—the Trump crash is transitory too.
Some of it has a distinct Soviet aroma to it: Do you need
a new iPhone, comrade, or do you merely
want one? (Columnist Josh Barro compared
that logic to progressives urging people to eat bugs instead of meat because of
the lower carbon emissions involved.) The MAGA right, so indignant last year
about the cost of living, will learn to embrace life without luxuries—or even money itself—and
to appreciate the government’s role in limiting individual consumption choices
for the greater good.
Some true believers have reached for tortured metaphors,
like equating tariffs with “chemotherapy” for
America’s debt. It’s unclear how effective the medicine will be, especially in
light of what’s
afoot in Congress, but it’s in sync with the GOP’s broader message that
before the richest country in history can “get well” economically, it first
needs to get very, very sick.
Some populists prefer less complicated justifications,
though. “Everyone I know who’s been wrong about literally everything for the
last 10 years is SUPER pissed about” tariffs, one person said on
Twitter, “so the ‘inverse retard’ indicator says it’s probably fine.” That
captures the spirit of MAGA better than anything I’ve written: If the experts
say “X,” surely the optimal move is “not X.” Enough so that we should gamble
the U.S. economy on it.
As for Trump, his own rationales are as messy and
incoherent as you’d expect. “MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE,” he declared
on Truth Social, signaling to businesses that they should go ahead and
recalculate their financial plans based on the new tariff regime. But he
contradicted that yesterday, hinting that that regime might suddenly
shift: “Every country is calling us. … The tariffs give us great power to
negotiate. They always have.”
Then, on Friday morning, he republished
a post from a Twitter
user speculating that he’s crashing the stock market on purpose as
part of a brilliant five-dimensional-chess scheme to force the Federal Reserve
to slash interest rates. Never did I dream I’d see a president take credit for
making voters poorer—see why I said this all appears indistinguishable from
sabotage?—but we live in an age of wonders. And in an age of wonders, the
desperation of cope is wondrous too.
The American age is over because the American people are
no longer worthy of it. The worse this gets and the more pathetic the
face-saving logic by Trump fanatics becomes, the clearer that’ll be.
Squandered capital.
The most important silver lining of Trump’s trade war,
though, is the timing. If you prefer the traditional constitutional order to
whatever the hell the president and his cronies are cooking up, you should feel
fortunate that he embarked on this folly sooner rather than later.
I agree with Jonathan Chait, who celebrated “Liberation
Day” at
The Atlantic by looking on the civic bright side:
Public-opinion polling on Trump’s
economic management, which has always been the floor that has held him up in
the face of widespread public dislike for his character, has tumbled. This has
happened without Americans feeling the full effects of his trade war. Once they
start experiencing widespread higher prices and slower growth, the bottom could
fall out.
…
As the political scientists Steven
Levitsky and Lucan Way point out, “Authoritarian leaders do the most damage
when they enjoy broad public support.” Dictators such as Vladimir Putin and
Hugo Chávez have shown that power grabs are easier to pull off when the public
is behind your agenda. Trump’s support, however, is already teetering. The more
unpopular he becomes, the less his allies and his targets believe he will keep
his boot on the opposition’s neck forever, and the less likely they will be to
comply with his demands.
At some point, Trump is going to defy a court ruling,
snatch more power away from Congress on “emergency” pretenses, and/or do
something nutty domestically with the military. When he does, it would be ideal
if his political support is already in the toilet. Judges, legislators,
business interests, and his own deputies are more likely to confront him when
resistance doesn’t seem as futile as it does now.
Presidents take office enjoying the benefit of the doubt
from voters. Joe Biden was given the benefit of the doubt that he, an old
Washington hand, would restore competence and normalcy to government in the
post-Trump era. That changed when Afghanistan went sideways and prices began to
climb, and it never changed back. His job approval was net
negative for the rest of his term. Having once been lost, the benefit of
the doubt is all but impossible to regain.
As Chait says, the benefit of the doubt Trump received
from voters last fall was keyed to his economic record. Americans will accept a
higher-than-usual risk of a coup in exchange for what they believe to be a
higher-than-usual probability of job creation. Watching him turn around and
detonate the global economy, and in truly the
stupidest way possible, will shatter that benefit of the doubt for all but his most
cultish supporters. There’s literally nothing he could do to more
efficiently squander the source of his political capital.
I’m not sure that even George W. Bush owned the Iraq war
as totally as Trump will own the recession that likely ensues from this trade
debacle. Bush had congressional and public support for the invasion, a
meaningful degree of strategic support from experts, and appeared less
ideologically invested in the cause than some of his deputies, like Dick
Cheney. Trump, on the other hand, has been plotting his trade war for literally
decades. He ran on it, test-drove it during his first term, seems at
least as eager as his aides to “go big” on it, and is flouting a
near-universal expert consensus by pressing ahead with it.
He owns it completely. If it bombs, there’s nowhere for
him and the GOP to hide and no reason for voters to trust his judgment on
anything again. (Not that there ever was, but many do.) When he makes his move
against the Supreme Court or Greenland or NATO or whoever, a public that’s
ceased giving him the benefit of the doubt about his supposed core competency
will view his conduct differently than it would have if the S&P 500 were
still cruising along at altitude.
Simply put, “Liberation Day” has made his authoritarian
schemes less likely to succeed. Cheers to that! But—and with pessimists,
there’s always a “but”—it might also have made them more dangerous.
Authoritarians love chaos because chaos gives them an
excuse to exercise authority. It’s no coincidence that Trump’s most aggressive
power grabs have had to do with phony emergencies. He used the Alien Enemies
Act to suspend due process for accused immigrant gang members on the dubious
theory that they’re part of an “invasion” force acting at the behest of the
Venezuelan government. And he justified using his tariff powers to wreck global
markets this week by pretending that trade deficits are, by definition,
a national emergency requiring urgent action by the president.
The worse the economy gets, the more civil unrest
there’ll be, and the more civil unrest there is, the more license Trump will
claim to “restore order.” The fact that he himself will have caused the
economic chaos that led to the unrest won’t matter. Like any authoritarian,
he’s perfectly willing to make trouble for the sake of giving himself a pretext
to crack down on the reaction in hair-raising ways. Postliberalism is a
self-perpetuating chaos machine.
I mean, how do megalomaniacs typically behave when their
grand vision of the world meets reality and begins to crumble? Do they humbly
admit error and change course? Or do they return to their core conviction that
success in any endeavor is achievable with
sufficient ruthlessness and act accordingly?
As his popularity tanks, then, Trump might be less likely
to become an autocrat “legitimately” yet more likely to become one
illegitimately. Or to try, anyway.
But that’s something to worry about on another day. This
weekend should be spent celebrating the
achievements of the Trump administration and the wisdom of the voters who
made it possible. “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what
they want and deserve to get it good and hard,” H.L. Mencken wrote.
Cheers to that too as recession beckons.
No comments:
Post a Comment