Discover more from Sanity Clause
In the days after the election, a rare peacefulness settled over the land. What was it? A remarkable event: For the first time in years, Donald Trump was pretty much silent. No nerves or cages were rattled by the latest outrageous, incontinent ramblings. He named a competent woman, Susie Wiles, as his chief of staff. And I was left to hope: Maybe this won’t be entirely awful. Trumpism without Trump—without the threat of authoritarianism and ignorance—seemed less threatening. The media, as is their wont, played the situation as, well, business as usual. The Democrats conceded power, gracefully, as they would. There was the illusion of normality. Would it last?
Naw. Probably not. For it to last, Trump would have to be something he has never been—gracious. He would have to stow the retribution, muffle the will to power and the hard-right ideology. He would have to color within the lines. I allowed myself to believe he would do that for a moment after the election of 2016. I find myself harboring the same irrational hopes now. But that’s mostly because there’s been no Trump the past few days. The honeymoon depends on his silence. That will not last.
In the meantime, here are some things I’ve been thinking about since the election:
Sanity Clause began with an assumption: cultural issues were more important than economics—but I was careful to include one exception: inflation. It is an issue that cuts very close to the bone. It is as immediate as your latest trip to McDonalds or Arby’s—my friend Rye Barcott called it fast food at sit-down restaurant prices. And Donald Trump will have to be very careful about it. If he goes ahead with his tariff plans, prices will rise. You can’t “fight” inflation and promote tariffs as your prime revenue source. It doesn’t compute.
At the same time, Trump will have the tailwind push of a vibrant economy—courtesy of Joe Biden. He will get credit for many of Biden’s achievements. The effects of the massive infrastructure bill will begin to kick in. The efforts to build an American chips industry and high-tech national defense sector may kick in, too. And aspects of Biden’s green policies will help with economic growth. This is similar to the fate of Jimmy Carter, who created many of the policies that Ronald Reagan got credit for. Life isn’t fair.
Latinos have been liberated. They were subsumed into the false “people of color” basket of adorables that was largely created by black activists and the academic-left. In reality, there is no such group as POC. The phrase should be retired. Most Latinos want to be regarded as Americans, nothing more and nothing less. They have established themselves as a classic immigrant group—similar to the Italians who joined the Republican Party in the 20th century because the Democrats were dominated by the Irish. The Latinos who live closest to the illegal immigration crisis, on the Texas border, voted for Trump. These are hard-working, religious conservative people.
There will be no honest conversation about the future of the Democratic Party until the disproportionate impact of blacks and women—and especially black women—is given a candid look. This will be very difficult. Over the past twenty years, and especially since the Me Too movement, the moral primacy of blacks and women has stood at the heart of the Party. It has become impossible to talk about possible feminist excesses—and, only recently, has the toxic silliness of “anti-racism” become a topic for mixed conversation. The equal rights of blacks and women are sacrosanct, of course, but the foolish quest for Equity—that is, equality of results—is over. And the era of bean-counting (as in, “I will have a woman Vice President” or “I will put a black woman on the Supreme Court”) must end now. You can appoint either/or but the prime standard must be quality not identity.
I’m not sure I’d want to be a Ukrainian in the coming months. I’ve been in the anti-Russia camp; I’m worried for the future of NATO if Putin gets his way. But I’ve always harbored doubts about my position. Some sort of deal seems inevitable. The Russians will wind up with the Russian-speaking eastern provinces they now control; any more than that should be opposed fiercely—but will Trump do it? This is the first, and perhaps truest, test of his Putin obeisance.
Everyone should read, or re-read, Michael Lewis’s splendid and infuriating book The Fifth Risk, which told the story of the violence done by the first Trump Administration to the government’s necessary experts in places you don’t think of, like the weather service. If there’s anything I’m really fearful about in Trump II—and there are a lot of things—it’s that the regulatory guardrails will be removed by Trump’s circle of oligarchs. But we should also recognize that the regulatory apparatus, and the civil service system, are badly in need of reform. Instead of Elon Musk, Trump’s Efficiency campaign should be led by Philip K. Howard, who has written a slew of books on the subject. You can start with The Death of Common Sense and move on from there.
If there was any good news in the election, it was that the bipartisan For Country caucus of recent military veterans has grown from thirty to 35…and maybe as many as 40 members (the split, after the election, is about 60-40 GOP). There will be 10 members in the Senate. These are moderates; they have signed a pledge to work together—and, in my experience, they do, against all odds. They are now the most prominent bipartisan faction in town—the Problem Solvers caucus took a massive hit in the foolish No Labels attempt to mount a third party presidential candidacy. If Trump decides to go full Mussolini, the strong military culture of service and sacrifice and avoidance of domestic politics will be the most plausible institution standing athwart him. Yes, there are more than a few Trumpers in the military, but they tend to populate the enlisted corps; the officer corps are a great American Sanity institution. If they go south, we go south.
This may turn out worse than I’m thinking—Trump has never failed to disappoint—but I have a pretty low bar right now: If the democracy survives and we have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028, I’ll be happy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/opinion/kamala-harris-trump-abortion.html
I know it's soooo hard but maybe a break from the denigration and demonization is in order, in exchange for a period of quiet introspection about how and why so many very expensively educated people were so wrong about all of this. Rise above your peers at the NYT, Morning Joe, The Guardian et al. It could happen!
Great piece Joe, eminently sensible and hopefully not falling on deaf ears. (Shouldn’t the term, if not the concept of “the Resistance” be mercifully retired?) Your brave take on identity politics is born out by a tough election and echos what Ruy Texiera and Doug Schoen and other sensible types in your party have been saying, (as well as your earlier comments). You will be off the Joy Reid holiday card list! 😺
As a conservative and an unenthusiastic Trump supporter, I just have to sit back and gasp at the sheer dominance that Trump is having on what will be 15 years of American political life. Whole forests will be cut down to form the library of books to explain this phenomenon, this colossus that bestrides our age. It all says something profound about us and our politics but I am not wise enough to know what.
Some random thoughts:
—Trump’s populism (i.e. tariffs, tip tax etc gimmicks, will face a willing but hopefully sensible Senate. As much as he is imagined to be a “fascist,” I think his instincts are more of a deal making Rockefeller Republican.
—The Democrats will pretend to conduct an honest postmortem but will fall back to the default position of Trump derangement. The media will not even bother with a reflective moment but continue on their merry way to irrelevance and oblivion.
Mark Halperin’s call for grace from all sides will be as dead as Kamala’s political career.
Ps Love the reference to Philip K Howard’s The Death of Common Sense—One of my faves!