“This is our oil crisis, in other words: a moment in which a belligerent superpower’s ill-considered monkeying with the underpinnings of global production will cause chaos, the crisis in which “ideas can move from the periphery to the center” in an eyeblink. […]
Or rather, it’s our opportunity to seize – or lose. Governments are defaulting to retaliatory tariffs as the best response to Trump’s tariffs. This is political poison: making everything your country imports from the USA more expensive is a very weird way to punish America for its trade war. […]
There’s a much better alternative, one that strikes at the very roots of American oligarchy, whose extreme wealth and corrosive political influence comes from its holdings in rent-extracting monopolies, especially Big Tech monopolies.”
“Why the break from this and the spurning of traditional allies? Why does Trump want to cuddle the Russian bear? The theatrics of the last month are overkill if it was all a crafty move to get European governments to cough up more on military spending. Ditto if it’s just for domestic consumption too. Some Trump voters will be amused, the majority bemused, and for nearly all of them they’re secondary considerations to the cost of living crisis – a key reason why they put him back in the White House. Nor are the intelligence reports that compromises Trump in all sorts of ways. As head of the most powerful military and intelligence capability the world has ever seen, in a sharply divided America front page splashes about Russian money and grim-sounding sex tapes would make little difference where Trump’s support is concerned.
The more compelling answer lies in divisions within the American establishment about the strategic orientation their state should have in the 21st century. The shifting economic centre of gravity towards East Asia coupled with the long-term demographic decline of Europe’s wealthy markets provides a compelling case for orienting away from the Atlantic to the Pacific.”
“To understand the source of Trump’s hold on power, and its main weakness, one needs to understand what patrimonialism is not. It is not the same as classic authoritarianism. And it is not necessarily antidemocratic. Patrimonialism’s antithesis is not democracy; it is bureaucracy, or, more precisely, bureaucratic proceduralism. […] patrimonialism is suspicious of bureaucracies; after all, to exactly whom are they loyal? They might acquire powers of their own, and their rules and processes might prove obstructive. People with expertise, experience, and distinguished résumés are likewise suspect because they bring independent standing and authority. So patrimonialism stocks the government with nonentities and hacks, or, when possible, it bypasses bureaucratic procedures altogether.”