Category: Political Science

The information environment is so soiled right now, it is especially difficult to assess such matters.  And I, like many others, am upset about the rhetoric and methods that have been applied from the American side.  Nonetheless I think this may be a better deal than its current press indicates.  Let me note a few features at the margin, rather than trying to assess the entire situation comprehensively:

1. I don’t know what those mineral rights in Ukraine are worth, but past some level of corruption there is a resource curse (though not for Norway).  So losing half of that revenue may not be as bad for Ukraine as it sounds.  Was all that oil and gas wealth so good for Russia?

2. For better or worse, the mineral rights deal will, de facto, be renegotiated many times.  Read your Williamson and Tirole!  So whatever your opinion of what ends up being put on paper this week, think more about solving for the equilibrium over the longer run. The American incentive and willingness to give future aid is now somewhat higher than it would have been, without a mineral rights deal.

3. Since this is Trump’s deal, the Trumpist American right will now have a strong stake in making the deal work.  That is significant.

4. At least potentially, Ukraine is now in some funny way “U.S.-certified” by the presence of the mineral rights deal.  I do understand the moral hazard problems here, but perhaps the alternative was a slow loss of the war, due to manpower problems of the Ukrainian side.

5. Many people are in denial about how much the current Ukrainian regime, whether justly or not, is unpopular with both Democrats in Congress and with the U.S. deep state.  There are far fewer courses of action than many deal critics would like to believe, and it is a mistake to think of all of this as coming from Trump.  How exactly would it go trying to push another major Ukraine aid package through Congress?

6. I am not sure what European defense efforts will amount to, but we do see various promises in a constructive direction.  Overall I am skeptical, but still there is some motion here.

7. As the prospects for the deal have approached, the Ukraine government bond market has been pretty happy.

So I am hoping for the best, and I consider these views as very subject to rapid revision.

That is my recent Bloomberg column on this all-important topic.  Here is one part:

The risk is that Trump would hoard the most sensitive information and disclose selectively, to manipulate the news cycle or to distract attention from other events. It also could give him more political weapons to use against what he calls the “deep state.” The president himself is hardly a model of transparency, whether the questions concern his tax returns, his medical exams or the possession of classified documents after leaving office.

But again, the issue is governmental disclosure, and so far, Trump’s record is 0 for 1. Before assuming office, he suggested that the US military knew more than it was letting on about the drones that had been sighted above New Jersey and other Northeastern states. Then, after Trump took office, his press secretary said only that they were “authorized” by the government “for research and various other reasons.” There has been no subsequent attempt to clarify matters. Personally, I am more confused than I was a month ago.

Perhaps there are good national security reasons for this silence. The point is that it is foolish to expect full and open disclosure from the president, no matter what his executive order says or what he has earlier promised.

One way to improve the process would be to appoint some independent auditors on a bipartisan basis, perhaps selected from Congress. Ex post, those auditors could judge whether disclosure, with transparent explanations, had actually occurred. They could grade the degree of disclosure, but they would not have the power to prevent it. Otherwise, there is a risk that — to choose an example not quite at random — evidence favoring the “two gunmen” hypothesis for JFK’s assassination is released, but conflicting evidence for the “lone gunman” hypothesis is suppressed. The auditors would issue a report saying whether disclosure was unbalanced or unfair.

And this:

Another problem with the task force is that it is authorized for only six months. Bureaucracies are by nature slow-moving, and can be even more so when they wish to be. A six-month deadline creates incentives to wait things out. Trump could threaten to extend the mandate, and perhaps he will. But then the disclosure campaign would turn out to be just a bargaining chip, rather than a genuine attempt to bring the truth to light.

Definitely recommended.

The Trump administration has issued a blizzard of Executive Orders, and set many other potential changes in the works.  They might rename Dulles Airport (can you guess to what?).  A bill has been introduced to add you-know-who to Mount Rushmore.  There is DOGE, and the ongoing attempt to reshape federal employment.

At the same time, many people have been asking me why Trump chose Canada and Mexico to threaten with tariffs — are they not our neighbors, major trading partners, and closest allies?

I have a theory that tries to explain all these and other facts, though many other factors matter too.  I think of Trumpian policy, first and foremost, as elevating cultural policy above all else.

Imagine you hold a vision where the (partial) decline of America largely is about culture.  After all, we have more people and more natural resources than ever before.  Our top achievements remain impressive.  But is the overall culture of the people in such great shape?  The culture of government and public service?  Interest in our religious organizations?  The quality of local government in many states?  You don’t have to be a diehard Trumper to have some serious reservations on such questions.

We also see countries, such as China, that have screwed-up policies but have grown a lot, in large part because of a pro-business, pro-learning, pro-work culture.  Latin America, in contrast, did lots of policy reforms but still is somewhat stagnant.

OK, so how might you fix the culture of America?  You want to tell everyone that America comes first.  That America should be more masculine and less soft.  That we need to build.  That we should “own the libs.”  I could go on with more examples and details, but this part of it you already get.

So imagine you started a political revolution and asked the simple question “does this policy change reinforce or overturn our basic cultural messages?”  Every time the policy or policy debate pushes culture in what you think is the right direction, just do it.  Do it in the view that the cultural factors will, over some time horizon, surpass everything else in import.

Simply pass or announce or promise such policies.  Do not worry about any other constraints.

You don’t even have to do them!

They don’t even all have to be legal!  (Illegal might provoke more discussion.)

They don’t all have to persist!

You create a debate over the issues knowing that, because of polarization, at least one-third of the American public is going to take your side, sometimes much more than that.  These are your investments in changing the culture.  And do it with as many issues as possible, as quickly as possible (reread Ezra on this).  Think of it as akin to the early Jordan Peterson cranking out all those videos.  Flood the zone.  That is how you have an impact in an internet-intensive, attention-at-a-premium world.

You will not win all of these cultural debates, but you will control the ideological agenda (I hesitate to call it an “intellectual” agenda, but it is).  Your opponents will be dispirited and disorganized, and yes that does describe the Democrats today.  Then just keep on going.  In the long run, you may end up “owning” far more of the culture than you suspected was possible.

Yes policy will be a mess, but as they say “man kann nicht alles haben.”  The culture is worth a lot, both for its own sake and as a predictor of the future course of policy.

Now let’s turn to some details.

In the first week, Trump makes a huge point of striking down DEI and affirmative action (in some of its forms) as the very beginnings of his administration.  The WSJ described it as the centerpiece of his program.  Take origins seriously!

Early on, we also see so many efforts to make statements about the culture wars.  Trans issues, for instance trans out of the military.  No more “Black History Month” for the Department of Defense.  There are more of these than I can keep track of, use Perplexity if you must.

It is no accident that these are priorities.  And keep in mind the main point is not to eliminate Black History Month, though I do not doubt that is a favored policy.  The main point is to get people talking about how you are eliminating Black History Month.  Just as I am covering the topic right now.

How is that war against US AID going?  Will it be abolished?  Cut off from the Treasury payments system?  Simply rolled up into the State Department?  Presidential “impoundment” invoked?  I do not know.  Perhaps nobody knows, not yet.  The point however is to delegitimatize what US AID stands for, which the Trumpers perceive as “other countries first” and a certain kind of altruism, and a certain kind of NGO left-leaning mindset and lifestyle.

The core message is simply “we do not consider this legitimate.”  Have that be the topic of discussion for months, and do not worry about converting each and every debate into an immediate tangible victory.

What about those ridiculous nominations, starting with RFK, Jr.?  As a result of the nomination, people start questioning whether the medical and public health establishments are legitimate after all.  And once such a question starts being debated, the answer simply cannot come out fully positive, whatever the details of your worldview may be.  People end up in a more negative mental position, and of course then some negative contagion reinforces this further.

JFK and UAP dislcosure?  The point is to get people questioning the previous regime, why they kept secrets from us, what really was going on with many other issues, and so on.  It will work.  The good news, if you can call it that, is that we can expect some of the juicier secrets to be made public.

I think by now you can see how the various attempts to restructure federal employment fit into this picture.  And Trump’s “war against universities” has barely begun, but stay tuned.  Don’t even get me going on “Gaza real estate,” the very latest.

Finally, let’s return to those tariffs (non-tariffs?) on Canada and Mexico.  We already know Trump believes in tariffs, and yes that is a big factor, but why choose those countries in particular?  Well, first it is a symbol of strength and Trump’s apparent ability to ignore and contradict mainstream opinion.  But also those are two countries most Americans have heard of.  If Trump announced high tariffs on say Burundi, most people would have no idea what it means.  They would not know how to debate it, and they would not know if America was debasing itself or thumbing its nose at somebody, or whatever.

Canada and Mexico gets the cultural point across.  Canada, all the more so, and thus the Canadian tariffs might be harder to truly reverse.  At least to many Yankee outsiders, Canada comes across as exactly the kind of “wuss” country we need to distance ourselves from.

To be clear, this hypothesis does not not not require any kind of cohesive elite planning the whole strategy (though there are elites planning significant parts of what Trump is doing).  It suffices to have a) conflicting interest groups, b) competition for Trump’s attention, and c) Trump believing cultural issues are super-important, as he seems to.  There then results a spontaneous order, in which the visible strategy looks just like someone intended exactly this as a concrete plan.

In a future post I may consider the pluses and minuses of this kind of political/cultural strategy.