Category: Politics

  • Nationalizing America will cost us dearly

    Nationalizing America will cost us dearly

    “I have the right to do anything I want to do,” Donald Trump told reporters in the White House cabinet room last month. “I’m the President of the United States.”

    Other branches of the federal government might disagree, but their representatives are strangely mute. “What Trump wants, Trump gets” is the motto that has defined the first eight months of the President’s second term. The overhaul of global trade? Sorted with an executive order and a pen. Poor job numbers? Fire the messenger, hire your own. Feeling the acute absence of a ballroom? Take “a little walk” on top of your White House, look out at your vast kingdom, and decide where the marble floor and golden beams will go.

    But domination of the federal government is simply not enough. This President has now set his sights on America’s real power engine: the private sector. And he doesn’t just want business to bend to his will. He wants a stake.

    This President has now set his sights on America’s real power engine: the private sector

    His first dabblings in acquired ownership have been met with very little resistance. “Intel is excited to welcome the United States of America as a shareholder,” the company said in its buoyant press release, after agreeing to hand over 10 percent of the company to the government in exchange for $8.9 billion in grants. The California-based manufacturer has gratefully received its 30 pieces of silver to solve several problems: not just the company’s financial issues, but an increasingly damaged public image, driven by Trump’s repeated criticisms of its chief executive Lip-Bu Tan and his “highly conflicted” connections to Chinese companies.

    This Judas-style betrayal of business norms has made investors nervous about what comes next, and not just for the chip manufacturing company. The watering down of shareholder rights to get this deal over the line is worrisome enough, but the quick and casual manner in which the US government took its stake in Intel is what’s really garnered attention. “That was easy,” jests one Wall Street long-timer. Now everyone wants to know: who’s next?

    Howard Lutnick has some ideas. Speaking last month on CNBC, the Commerce Secretary argued that defense companies such as Lockheed Martin are an “arm of the US government” – and ideal candidates for the government’s new equity search. The idea is picking up some sympathetic support, not least because some of these companies are almost completely funded by the US government already.

    As is so often the case with Trump and his policies, there is a good point to be teased out around the drama and upheaval of norms. While some cry “dictatorship,” Intel seems rather enthusiastic about this new joint venture with the Swamp. It is a rare moment of transparency, one that gives Americans a glimpse into just how entwined the state and big business are: the former frequently propping up the latter, protecting major corporations from facing the consequences of failure in a market economy.

    Indeed, the links between government money and big American corporations are inextricable. What is often described as a free market or a distinct separation of the state from the private sector is, in reality, crony capitalism on blatant display: billions of dollars transfer every year from the taxpayer to the country’s biggest healthcare provider, UnitedHealthcare, to cover both Medicare and Medicaid. Exxon Mobil benefits from receiving billions of its own, in the form of federal subsidies and loans.

    Yet the extreme makeover of the Republican party – especially on business policy – means that rather than taking on cronyism and putting an end to taxpayer funds picking winners and losers, the second Trump administration is far more interested in how it can skim off the success and the profits of America’s biggest players, in how it can make government look like a “winner.”

    Dreams of seizing the means of production are usually confined to one end of the political spectrum – the same end that likes to slip in talk of “manifestos” and workers of the world uniting. Not even New York’s Zohran Mamdani – the loud and proud socialist who won the Democratic nomination in the city’s mayoral race this summer – has yet felt so emboldened as to call for these kinds of business interventions. He’ll find it much easier to do so if Trump leads the way. It’s an uncomfortable overlap that neither the President nor the soon-to-be Mayor want to admit, but their shared love for economic populism explains why both men were able to move the numbers in their favor across the five boroughs in their most recent respective elections.

    But is America ready for some real nationalization? Markets are still jittery, as they navigate the strong dose of protectionism Trump administered when he announced a 10 percent universal tariff on goods coming into the US. While the federal government does have a record of acquiring businesses, the Intel deal looks a lot more like the arrangements made in far more interventionist and often stagnant economies. The exception might be China, where the Chinese Communist party has at least some stake in the majority of large companies in the country. Is this really the model Trump wants to emulate?

    Regardless, his plans may have to wait, as some parts of the government are not ready to settle for Trump’s takeover of the public sector just yet. The legality of Trump’s tariffs is now likely to be determined by the Supreme Court, while Democrats gear up for another spending battle on Capitol Hill.

    It seems Trump will have enough to keep him busy within government before he seriously considers expanding his reach into the private sector.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 15, 2025 World edition.

  • Is it all over for Milei?

    Is it all over for Milei?

    A landslide election defeat for Argentine President Javier Milei’s Libertad Avanza party has made money markets doubt whether he will be able to push through his radical economic reforms.

    The Argentine peso lost 5.6 percent to the dollar and the Merval stock index plunged by 13 points on Monday after the flamboyant President’s party trailed the leftist opposition Peronist party of former President Cristina Kirchner by 13 points (47 percent to 34 percent) in local elections in Buenos Aires province – which, with 40 percent of the country’s voters, is the country’s biggest and most populous area.

    Bond markets also reacted negatively to the shock result, posting their biggest daily falls since they recommenced trading in 2021 after a debt reconstruction deal. The markets are worried that the heavy defeat for Milei means that he is also heading for a beating next month in midterm Senate and congressional elections that he needs to win decisively in order to override constitutional bars on his ambitious libertarian plans to reform Argentina’s antiquated statist economy.

    Milei, a political outsider who revels in the label “anarcho-capitalist,” came from nowhere in November 2023 to win the Presidency in a shock result on a platform of radical right-wing economic transformation to rescue the country from decades of stagnation and decline. He took to waving a chainsaw at public rallies to symbolise his plans to slash jobs in the government’s bureaucracy.

    Milei appeared on stage with Donald Trump and Elon Musk after the U.S. President won his second term in the White House a year after Milei’s victory on a similar promise to cut government jobs and save huge amounts in state spending. But this surprise electoral defeat raises the possibility that Argentina’s voters are experiencing buyers’ remorse when faced with the harsh reality of Milei’s job cuts.

    Milei reacted to what he admitted was a “clear defeat” with defiance. While acknowledging that he would need to “process” the setback he said he would not retreat from his policy by “even a millimetre”. On the contrary, he pledged to accelerate and even deepen the cutbacks.

    Public worries about an economic slowdown have been compounded recently by rumors of a corruption scandal involving Milei’s sister. Audio clips were released of an official in a disability charity claiming that Karina Milei – who is secretary in the presidency – was accepting half a million dollars in bribes in exchange for awarding government pharmaceutical contracts. Milei and his sister have denied the claims, but since Milei won the Presidency partly by denouncing Peronist corruption, the allegations are to say the least, embarrassing.

    In his first year in office, Milei certainly made a determined start in fulfilling his campaign promises to curb inflation and begin his drive to reduce government spending. He devalued the peso by 50 percent, cut the number of ministries by half, and dramatically slashed state subsidies on fuel and transport. He also fired tens of thousands of civil servants who he deemed surplus to requirements.

    Despite initial jitters about the wild-haired President’s freewheeling style, the markets liked what they saw and inflation did start to fall, while Argentina’s bank reserves reached record levels. But as Sunday’s electoral setback proved, the Argentine people – especially those in and around the capital, a long time Peronist stronghold have grown increasingly frustrated that their economic situation has not improved more rapidly.

    Argentines have grown comfortable after decades of relying on handouts from a bloated state sector, so Milei’s ruthless austerity has come as an unwelcome dose of reality.

    The reliance on support and subsidies from a state that couldn’t really afford the handouts fuelled hyperinflation and bred unhealthy habits of dependence, as well as stifling free enterprise and initiatives.

    If Milei is now unable to force through his libertarian reforms in the teeth of opposition from the powerful Argentine establishment, and second thoughts by the voters, the clear danger must be that the country will revert to the bad old ways under which it was misruled for so long.

  • Will cops wearing Arabic badges serve and protect all?

    Will cops wearing Arabic badges serve and protect all?

    Last week, the Dearborn Heights Police Department revealed the nation’s first-ever officer uniform patch featuring Arabic script. It was designed by a policewoman named Emily Murdoch, and on first glance it might look like a gesture of inclusivity. But is this really progress – or it it, in fact, a sign of cultural fragmentation?

    As an Iraqi-American Muslim, I feel compelled to answer. I came to the United States after Iraq was swallowed by Iranian-backed militias and sectarian violence. I know exactly what happens when identity politics becomes the organizing principle of civic life. And the last thing I ever wanted to see in America is the export of that same toxic culture – one that thrives on division, preferential treatment and symbolic displays of power.

    Supporters of the new badge will say it’s harmless. A small sign of recognition. A gesture toward Dearborn’s large Arab-American community. But symbols are never “just symbols.” They carry meaning. And the meaning here is troubling: that America’s civic institutions, instead of standing above ethnic and religious division, should bend themselves to it.

    America’s immigration success was due to integration, not balkanisation. If we look at the Hispanic community, which is the largest immigrant group, they have never demanded police badges in Spanish. No ethnic group in U.S. history has ever sought this kind of symbolic segregation.

    As someone who lived as a minority in my homeland, I know how damaging ethnic exceptionalism is. Imagine a scenario: two men get into a fight, one Arab and one Hispanic, and both call the police. The officers arrive wearing Arabic-script badges. What is the non-Arab supposed to feel? That the authority recognises Arabs but not him. That the state has already chosen sides. How can any non-Arab feel safe when U.S. authority is signaling ethnic preference?

    It is a dangerous precedent, especially when history is considered. Arabs themselves once spread their language by force during the Caliphates, colonizing vast regions of Asia, Africa and Europe. Arabic, once confined to southern Arabia, was imposed on conquered peoples across continents. Entire nations were reshaped by conquest, their native scripts replaced. Turkey, until 1928, still used Arabic letters – until Atatürk banned them as a declaration of independence from Islamist domination. Symbols matter, and they can signal conquest as much as community.

    This is why America must not fall into the trap of deceptive gestures that plant seeds of division, suspicion and resentment. Our enemies have openly declared that they will wage jihad from within, masked as “reform movements” that undermine authority and drive people to hate their governments. Jamal Khashoggi himself, in a televised discussion with Muslim Brotherhood members in Doha, argued that attacking the Western Imperialism from the outside had failed on 9/11, and that the strategy must now shift to the inside. The Brotherhood’s ultimate goal is no secret: global Sharia rule.

    The Dearborn Heights Police Department’s rollout of the Arabic patch was walked back by Mayor Bill Bazzi, who said it “remains an idea” requiring broader input – but although I appreciate Bazzi, himself an Arab American, for his stance, I must argue it shouldn’t even remain an idea when it’s this problematic and fails to reflect American values.

    As an Iraqi-American, when I first arrived in the United States, I was grateful to find a country where everyone was different yet treated with one language, under one civic culture. There is a reason I came here: because I admired America’s principles, not because I wanted to change them. Those who come determined to reshape the U.S. in the image of their old homelands show no love for this country.

    We must all be wary of the multiculturalism trap. What looks like inclusion is, in fact, separateness. Ironically, the very measures meant to “celebrate diversity” end up isolating immigrant groups even further. America risks repeating Europe’s mistakes, losing itself to Islamism instead of one shared nationality.

    Immigrants who arrive here need to understand that integration is a responsibility, not a choice. Otherwise, there are fifty-three Muslim countries in which people who dislike the very essence and principles of being American might feel more comfortable.

    And so we return to that badge. What is it really saying? That Arab-Americans need special recognition from state authority. That America must adjust itself to their sensitivities. But America is not supposed to work that way. The uniform is meant to serve all Americans, equally, without distinction.

    So the question we must ask Emily Murdoch, and anyone else promoting these divisive symbols, is simple: are you here to serve America – or the Arab community alone?



  • Scott Bessent, future UFC fighter?

    Scott Bessent, future UFC fighter?

    Plans have begun on constructing the Octagon on the White House lawn for a UFC fight to commemorate what President Trump is now calling the “Super Centennial,” the US’s 250th birthday next year. And it looks like we might have an undercard ready to go involving the Treasury Secretary.

    Last week, according to Politico, Scott Bessent got into it with top housing finance official Bill Pulte at a private dinner at Executive Branch, an “ultra-exclusive created by and for Trump world’s uberrich.” Cockburn didn’t receive an invite to this birthday party for podcaster Chamath Palihapitiya, even though he and Chamath go way back.

    In any case, Bessent had apparently heard that Pulte was badmouthing him to Trump behind his back, and said, “Why the fuck are you talking to the President about me? Fuck you. I’m gonna punch you in your fucking face.”

    Whoa whoa whoa, said club owner Omeed Malik, but Bessent insisted that Malik throw out Pulte on his rear.

    “It’s either me or him,” Bessent said to Malik. “You tell me who’s getting the fuck out of here.”

    “Or,” he added, “we could go outside.”

    “To do what?” asked Pulte. “To talk?”

    “No,” Bessent replied. “I’m going to fucking beat your ass.”

    As it turned out, no billionaire or millionaire beat anyone else’s ass that night, and the “bonkers” and “unhinged” incident ended “without further incident.”

    Cockburn has long been a consumer of American political history and enjoys most of all the stories of people beating each other with canes on the floor of the Senate. However, this takes Team of Rivals to a new level. Bessent has been pugilistic with his words in other recent moments as well, getting into it with Elon Musk in the White House over who should be the acting IRS commissioner.

    The Treasury Secretary has clear alpha-male anger issues, which is why he belongs in the Octagon. Before Brock Lesnar or whoever takes to the canvas, let’s have Bessent fight a deputy undersecretary of something or other. He can get it out of his system and then get back to his regularly scheduled program of cryptocurrency shilling and tariff apologia.

    Then again, maybe violence isn’t the solution to all our problems. President Trump made a big show today about rooting out “anti-religious propaganda” in schools and donating his family Bible to a Bible Museum. But the Bible doesn’t teach you to threaten to “fucking beat the ass” of political rivals. A Biblical ass is something for a pregnant virgin to ride on to the manger.

    Does the Trump family Bible say anything about turning the other cheek or loving thy neighbor? “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all,” the Good Book says. Unless some bastard is talking about you behind your back to the President. Them’s fighting words.

  • Is Jacinda Ardern trying to avoid Covid scrutiny?

    Is Jacinda Ardern trying to avoid Covid scrutiny?

    During the five years Jacinda Ardern led New Zealand, much was made of her “transparent” style of touchy-feely leadership and willingness to deal with thorny questions. Yet on the biggest issue of her record – her zero Covid policies – the former prime minister has gone missing.

    A planned week-long public hearing at an inquiry in New Zealand into the nation’s Covid response was abandoned last month, after Jacinda Ardern and other senior figures from her government unexpectedly refused to testify.

    Ardern’s no-show came as a surprise to many, including the country’s prime minister, Christopher Luxon, who said his predecessor’s decision was “not right.”

    Summarizing her decision not to speak publicly about her handling of the pandemic, the commission said Ardern and her former allies – her health minister, Ayesha Verrall, the minister in charge of the Covid response, Chris Hipkins, and her high-spending finance minister Grant Robertson – believed that the exercise would merely be “performative” rather than “informative.”

    The erstwhile ministers had also been concerned that the livestreaming or publication of their evidence could become fodder for epic online trolling.

    A spokesman for Ardern said she had already provided “extensive evidence, including a recent interview that lasted three hours” for the commission, which is currently in its second phase of evaluating the country’s response to Covid – homing in on the later period when much of the gloss came off the Ardern juggernaut.

    A touch wearily, Hipkins, who has led Labour since Ardern stepped down in early 2023, said he had already spent years talking about the subject.

    As Ardern’s minister in charge of the Covid response, Hipkins oversaw the implementation of a raft of policies that saw cities locked down for months at a time, all but the luckiest expatriate Kiwis denied entry back into their country and, most controversially, Ardern’s “no jab, no job” policy for public servants in education and health who refused the vaccines.

    The last measure led to a month-long occupation outside parliament that ended with running street battles between police and hundreds of protesters.

    In the wake of the chaos, the telegenic leader’s hitherto unassailable poll numbers began to crash, and within a year she decided to call it a political day – even as her reputation abroad remained as high as ever in social democratic circles.

    Her latest decision to stay mum about the central event of her life seems awkwardly timed. With political life now behind her, Ardern has been promoting a bestselling new book about the “different” kind of leadership she brought to world politics.

    Billed as an “inspiring story of how a Mormon girl plagued by self-doubt changed our assumptions of what a leader can be,” Ardern’s new work has also been criticized in Britain as a 350-page transcript of a less-than-enthralling therapy session.

    Surprisingly little space is devoted in the book to lingering questions over her handling of the pandemic. The period is mainly recounted in the context of a factual retelling of landmark moments without much reflection on the kinds of pratfalls that almost certainly would have been raised at any public hearing in New Zealand.

    It could be that she has simply moved on to brighter things. Since leaving politics, Ardern has nabbed a number of plum stateside academic roles, including dual fellowships at Harvard Kennedy School – the university’s school of public policy and government – and a recent commencement speech at Yale.

    This year she became a visiting fellow at Oxford University’s Blavatnik School of Government, where she offers what the school describes as her insights into “leadership in times of crisis, commitment to public service, and deep understanding of governance.” Presumably not to be repeated beyond closed doors.

  • Does Britain want Prince Harry back?

    Does Britain want Prince Harry back?

    “Success,” Winston Churchill was once reputed to have said, “is the ability to go from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” By this metric, Prince Harry must be about the most successful figure in public life today. Despite a series of myriad embarrassments and humiliations, which have included his Sentebale charity descending into chaos, his well-publicized legal shenanigans (which, apparently, cost him over a million pounds, for little reward) and a consistent ranking as Britain’s third most unpopular royal (ahead only of his disgraced uncle and perennially disliked wife), he is returning to Britain this week, for his first significant visit to 2022.

    Harry is “determined to press the reset button,” according to press reports. Although Harry’s popularity has been in the gutter in his home country over the past few years, he has decided that he is going to go on what amounts to a public relations offensive to change this. Ominously, according to a well-sourced report in the Sunday Times of London, the Duke of Sussex has decided that “he is going to have some fun” on his return to Britain. Given that the younger Harry’s definition of “fun” included everything from dressing up in a Nazi uniform to being surreptitiously photographed playing poker naked in Las Vegas, we might fear the worst. In fact, the itinerary that has been briefed to the media is impeccably wholesome. There are the WellChild awards on Monday, plenty of receptions with charities that he supports, including the Invictus Foundation, and he will be attending a meeting in Nottingham for young people affected by violence. This is, those around Harry hope, the best of him: his mother’s compassion and sincere interest in others channeled through to a new generation.

    At least, this is the hope. Yet during his four-day visit, which is, perhaps wisely, “jam-packed with hardly any downtime,” there are two rather significant elephants in the room.

    The first, of course, is Harry’s family. He is not believed to have any direct contact with his father in recent months, since they last met in February 2024, and his ill-judged remarks about the King’s health in his equally ill-judged BBC interview in May – after failing to succeed in taking legal action against his government – are understood to have caused deep offense that will make any reconciliation hard.

    As for relations between Harry and William, there is more chance of Meghan Markle making her West End debut in a one-woman production of Mother Courage than there is of the two estranged brothers speaking any time soon. The tawdry revelations in Spare set the kibosh on another very frosty relationship. Notably, he will be staying in expensive hotels, rather than at Buckingham Palace.

    The other problem is that Harry is incapable of keeping his mouth shut. He is an impetuous, emotional man who is all too keen to use the media to get his message across, but as his lack of popularity shows, he could often do with removing his foot from his mouth. It has been briefed that Harry would someday like to bring his young children back to the country of his birth – where they have not visited since June 2022 – and that: “He wants to be able to show his children where he grew up. He wants them to know their family here. He really would like to come back to the UK much more.” Yet the myriad difficulties with the practicalities of this may well make such a thing impossible. For the Duke to be accepted once more into the bosom of his family, one can imagine that various conditions might be made – which may or may not include leaving his fragrant wife in Montecito, where she would certainly rather remain – and a proud and headstrong figure like Harry might be unwilling to debase himself in so public and humiliating a fashion.

    The Duke’s visit this week will inevitably attract headlines and much attention, and he is hoping, as one well-sourced friend has briefed the papers, that it will go well. “He is excited to be on the ground, helping his organizations where he can. He’s pumped for the visit, he’s happy.”

    Should it proceed according to plan – in other words, uneventfully – then it might be the beginning of a rapprochement with his home country. But should anything go amiss, or the coverage of his visit be less rhapsodic than he might wish, then it will be hard to imagine that this return will be as regular an occurrence as Harry might be hoping for. How heartbroken his former subjects would be by this remains to be seen.

  • Macron must go

    This evening Emmanuel Macron will almost certainly be searching for his fifth prime minister since January last year. François Bayrou’s decision to call a vote of confidence in his government looks like a calamitous misjudgment, one that will plunge France into another period of grave instability. Comparisons are being drawn with the tumult of the Fourth Republic when, between 1946 and 1958, France went through more than 20 governments.

    Bayrou’s coalition government has limped along this year, achieving little other than creating more disenchantment and contempt among the long-suffering electorate. The French are fed up with their political class.

    Above all, they’re sick to the back teeth of their president. It was Emmanuel Macron’s decision to call a snap election in June 2024 that kickstarted the chaos. And to think he did it for “clarification.”

    An opinion poll last week reported that Macron’s approval rating has hit a record low: just 15 percent of the country think he is doing a good job. Who are these 15 percenters? How can any voter cast an eye over their crumbling country and conclude that France is in a better state economically and socially than it was in 2017?

    Across the political spectrum calls are growing for Macron to resign. From Marine Le Pen on the right to Jean-Luc Mélenchon on the left, and including veteran centrists such as Jean-François Copé, a minister in the government of Jacques Chirac. They believe the only way France can begin to rebuild is with a new president.  So do the majority of the people; a weekend opinion poll reported that 58 percent believe Macron should resign in the event Bayrou loses his vote.

    Were Macron a man of his word he would step down. In an exchange in 2019 with a group of intellectuals, he criticised previous presidents who stayed in their posts despite losing the confidence of voters in legislative elections. 

    The French are fed up with their political class

    “The president of the Republic should not be able to stay (in office) if he had a real disavowal in terms of a majority,” said Macron.

    The president’s parliamentary majority was slashed in the 2022 election when his party lost 105 seats. In last year’s snap election, they hemorrhaged a further 95.

    The president still struts around the international stage, exchanging hugs and handshakes with other equally inept European leaders. But outside Western Europe no one takes Macron seriously. Not Trump, not Xi, not Putin, not even Tunisia.

    Last week a Tunisian with a history of drug abuse and violence rampaged through Marseille, stabbing several people with a knife as he screamed “Allahu Akbar.” Police shot him dead. The Tunisian government is outraged, calling it “an unjustified killing” and demanding an investigation into the actions of the policemen.

    Authoritarian regimes issue such provocative statements because they know Macron won’t respond. Tunisia, like Algeria – which in the last 12 months have thrown a French journalist and a Franco-Algerian writer in jail – have no respect for the president of the Republic.

    With every day that Macron stays in office, France’s international standing drops another notch. But he insists that he won’t resign.

    In that case, what are the alternatives to France’s political impasse, assuming Bayrou does lose his vote of confidence this evening? Macron could dissolve parliament and call fresh elections, which is what Marine Le Pen wants. But then she would, knowing that the opinion polls put her National Rally party way in front of its rivals.

    Last week, former president Nicolas Sarkozy said that legislative elections were the “only solution.” He also legitimatized Le Pen, declaring that the “National Rally is a party that has the right to stand in elections… in my view, they belong to the Republican spectrum.”

    It’s going to be a week of extreme turbulence in France

    Last month Macron declared that fresh elections aren’t the answer. His preference is to cobble together a third coalition government. Having tried a center-right Premier (Michel Barnier) and a centrist in Bayrou, he’s said to be considering a prime minister from the left.

    The name on commentators lips is Olivier Faure, the leader of the Socialist Party. He and Macron know each other well, to the point of using the informal “tu” when addressing each other.

    You might consider it odd that Macron would turn to a Socialist. This is the party whose representation in parliament has nosedived from 331 seats in 2012 to 66 last year. Their presidential candidate in the 2022 election, Anne Hidalgo, polled 616,478 votes (1.7 percent), 200,000 fewer than the Communist candidate.

    Then again perhaps it isn’t surprising. Macron may have sold himself to the public as a centrist when he launched his En Marche! party a decade ago, but he is at heart a Socialist. He admitted it to a summit of business leaders in 2014, when as the Economy Minister in Francois Hollande’s government, he told his audience: “I am a Socialist… I stand by that.”

    In effect, France has been governed by a Socialist since 2012. Between them Hollande and Macron have led the Republic to rack and ruin. Now there is the prospect of a Socialist prime minister.

    Among the measures Faure has announced in the event he becomes PM are a reduction of the retirement age from 64 to 62 and the creation of a 2 percent tax on assets worth more than €100 million ($117 million).

    It’s going to be a week of extreme turbulence in France. There is the vote today in parliament and then on Wednesday the people will take to the streets in a protest movement called “Block Everything.”

    Do they really need to bother? France is already blocked, thanks to Emmanuel Macron.

  • The case for MAGA imperialism

    Empire has always been part of the American tradition. We are a sequel state to the greatest empire in world history. Our period of colonial tutelage under that empire taught the lessons of legitimate territorial expansion against French and Spanish rivals. Our continental aggrandizement after independence was necessary. Later overseas expansion, including periods of imperial apprenticeship in places such as Liberia, the Philippines and Panama, was further evidence of our colonial métier. Like it or not, imperialism and colonialism are congenital to the American experiment. This has been the case since 1779, when the Continental Congress branded a proposal to limit westward expansion an “intolerable despotism.” Since then, our imperial project has experienced constant cycles of confidence and self-doubt. Fair-weather friends – such as Niall Ferguson and Max Boot – scamper for the exit when times are tough. But history shows the need to stay the course. Making America great again will require the United States to take up its old vocation.

    The Trump administration inherits two of the most critical imperial roles that we currently undertake: the defense of Taiwan and the defense of Israel, two countries that are, properly speaking, imperial dependents: without American support they would not exist. So far, the US has borne those responsibilities admirably. But the past six months have shown that a more avowedly imperial policy represents the best means of advancing the national interest. Donald Trump’s highlighting of the misgovernance of Greenland and the Panama Canal region has been energizing through its cold-blooded pragmatism. The US has had interests in these jurisdictions for decades, but it was only the credible threat of imperial annexation that could extract the concessions made by Panama and the Danish Crown.

    Similarly, the revival of the very old idea of a North American union with Canada has been a jolt in the arm to our listless northern neighbor. It has elected a conservative in all but name as prime minister, is boosting defense spending to bear its fair share of the NATO burden, and is reinforcing the porous border that it long ignored. Mass immigration is being checked and fiscal balance taken seriously. We could not suffer our northern border becoming some semi-failed European welfare state with colorful socks, and it was only our threat to revise the verdict of 1812 that has forestalled this.

    Still outstanding on the overseas front is how to reconstruct Gaza into a stable and humane enclave which has been fumigated of terrorists. Trump (and Israel) recognize that there is no going back to Palestinian self-governance. Much as 60,000 Lebanese demanded a restoration of French rule after a port explosion leveled Beirut in 2020, there is a case for a restored western mandate in Gaza led by the US. Making America great again requires the US to take up these new loads of the “enlightened man’s burden” (which is apparently what Rudyard Kipling meant when he spoke of “the white man’s burden”) lest we fail in our historic mission as provider of ordered rule to places of strategic significance. The US military has been quietly building up its ranks and training civil affairs officers since being caught with its domestic governance pants down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sooner the Trump administration initiates the project, the better. Lessons learned from the successful colonial occupation of Iraq and the failed one in Afghanistan can be applied. In time, a self-governing enclave could emerge.

    The other outstanding overseas imperial calling is in Yemen. The country has been a failed state since the British fled from their shrinking perimeter in Aden in 1967. The United Arab Emirates set up a de facto colonial regime in Aden in 2017, the Southern Transitional Council. It is now part of a larger, Saudi-orchestrated governing body for the non-Houthi areas of Yemen, the Presidential Leadership Council. Both are supported by the UN as well as the EU. Now that Iran’s ability to support the chaos in the rest of the country has been weakened, there is an opportunity for the US to form a governing coalition for the country as a whole with Abraham Accords partners. This would secure the maritime route through the Suez Canal and bring further security to both Saudi Arabia and Israel. That would be an imperial mission to applaud.

    Finally, there is the pressing question of restoring American rule in the US itself. The US-Mexico border that was delineated in 1848 never acted as a barrier to illegal immigration. Since then, tens of millions of people from around the world have used the southern border to colonize themselves as US subjects. But colonialism must be in the gift of the colonizer, not the colonized. Aside from a stronger border and an end to birthright citizenship, our growing imperial capacities must play a role here. The imperial waystation in South Sudan that the Supreme Court declared legal in early July, as well as our use of El Salvador for the same purpose, are examples of how our imperial network abroad can be used to protect our imperial gains at home.

    A more robust defense of our imperial story is also the best way to fight the “decolonizing” impulse at home. The great decolonizer Barack Obama represented a break with the long tradition of black patriotism since the American founding. The “return to Africa” neo-segregation of black communities that this encouraged could only be a farce since black people have no actual interest in decolonizing themselves from white communities.

    More serious was Obama’s encouragement of Native American separation and its entailed obliteration of American imperial history on the continent. Under the Obama and then Biden administrations, the entire Department of the Interior gave itself over to “decolonizing” American land management in favor of “Native American” groups. What is required now is to develop a robust legal strategy to combat this steady erosion of the republic.

    The US became an empire because most actual Indians, as with most California and Texas Mexicans, most Spanish Floridians and, later, most Filipinos and South Vietnamese and South Koreans, preferred American rule to the available “indigenous” alternatives. The Taiwanese prefer US suzerainty to rule by China and Israel certainly prefers it to erasure. The American experiment has been an imperial one from the very first; the sooner we affirm this – at home as well as abroad – the better.

  • As Trump wooed Kim Jong-un, he secretly unleashed Navy SEALs

    As Trump wooed Kim Jong-un, he secretly unleashed Navy SEALs

    Think of the first Trump administration’s North Korea policy, and the bright lights, photo ops and eventual lack of deals in Singapore and Hanoi come to mind. The first two years of Trump 1.0 saw the then-new US president fluctuate between threatening “fire and fury” on the hermit kingdom to calling Kim Jong-un a “great leader”. Yet, the recent and as-of-yet unconfirmed revelations of an abortive US mission in early 2019 – wherein US Navy SEALs sought to intercept communications of Kim Jong-un – may seem to contradict the unusual bromance between Trump and Kim at the time. But in fact, they only emphasize Trump’s desperation for a deal with North Korea at the time.

    Neither Washington nor Pyongyang has ever commented on the elaborate operation, allegedly approved by Trump, which seems closer to a James Bond movie than reality. Navy SEAL Team 6 was given the task of sneaking into waters off North Korea on a nuclear-powered submarine, after which a small team of SEALs would be dispatched in smaller submarines near the shore. They would then swim to shore, plant the listening device and return unseen having evaded the gaze of North Korean surveillance. Yet as with all military operations, things are easier said than done. As the special operations forces made their way to shore, North Korean fishermen in a trawler, allegedly fishing for shellfish in the area, moved towards the stationed submarines. The SEALs – by then on land – shot all two or three North Korean civilians and abandoned their mission.

    Questions abound as to whether North Korea knew about the incident and how Pyongyang might have reacted at a time when Trump and Kim were exchanging frequent “love letters” after their first summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018. Kim Jong-un wanted benefits from the United States, including the removal of sanctions but also status and legitimacy, all the while he continued to expand his nuclear and missile programs. With a second summit with Trump set for February 2019, any North Korean escalation in brinkmanship in response to the incident could have led to the cancellation of talks at the bare minimum. After all, North Korea had already witnessed Trump’s volatility when, in May 2018, he abruptly cancelled – before re-instating – the Singapore Summit.

    The period from 2018 to 2019 marked a bizarre juncture in US-North Korean ties. After his election in November 2016, not even North Korea knew what to expect from the man who, in his pre-election campaign, offered to “eat a hamburger over a conference table” with Kim Jong-un. But Pyongyang was glad to see the end of the Obama administration, whose policy of “strategic patience” – waiting for North Korea to take the first step towards denuclearization before offering the North any concessions – had brought Pyongyang few benefits bar the time to develop its nuclear and missile technology.

    As US-North Korean summitry gained momentum, the war of words that characterized relations between Trump and Kim after Trump took office in January 2017 would undergo a hiatus, but not after North Korea launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile on 4 July and, on September 3, conducted its sixth nuclear test, which the North Koreans would deem to be a hydrogen bomb. Had the Navy SEALs’ operation succeeded in early 2019, then Washington would certainly have gained information about how the secretive North Korean regime thinks and works, which would have been in line with Trump’s simultaneous ambitions to engage in dialog with Kim Jong-un whilst also transform North Korea in the longer term. Who can forget when, at the first summit between Kim and Trump in Singapore on June 12, 018, Trump showed Kim Jong-un a video of how a non-nuclear North Korea could become a site of prime real estate with “investment from around the world”?

    For all his idiosyncrasies, the Kim regime saw in Trump an opportunity to continue its then-byungjin policy of parallel nuclear and economic development and gain recognition of North Korea as a de facto nuclear state, the latter which has going grown stronger to this day. Soon after the failed Navy SEAL mission, the much-anticipated second summit between Trump and Kim in Hanoi, from February 27-28, 2019, would take place, and be anything but a success, particularly for Kim Jong-un. Kim’s desire for sanctions relief in exchange for the Yongbyon Nuclear Facility was rightly refused, and expectedly, Washington and Pyongyang could not agree on how to define North Korea’s denuclearization.

    As more details of the 2019 mission look to emerge, could Trump 2.0 engage in a similar operation? Kim Jong-un is now hardly a novelty for Trump, with the two leaders having met three times across 2018 and 2019. What is more, the costs of any such operations have only heightened. North Korea in 2025 is not the same as in 2019. As Pyongyang seeks to ensure it benefits from its relations with its authoritarian comrades of Beijing and Moscow, Trump has already targeted Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un for “conspir[ing] against the United States of America”. And with Washington focused primarily on deterring China, gaining information on North Korea from the Supreme Leader himself – whilst valuable – may not be a priority.

  • Camus comes to America

    Camus comes to America

    The 20th-century French writer Albert Camus remains a living author, a permanent contemporary, in a way that the far more dogmatic and ideological Jean-Paul Sartre does not. The latter provided a caricature of “existentialism,” nihilism dressed up as absolute freedom, beholden to no limits and no enduring truths. In contrast, the author of The Stranger and The Plague rejected Sartre’s facile nihilism, as well as his repellant accommodation with murderous messianism, typically conveyed in fashionable leftist nostrums. The more hopeful side of Camus comes through in his recently re-released Travels in the Americas: Notes and Impressions of a New World.

    An entry from his travel notebook from his four-month long trip to New York, the east coast of the US and parts of Canada in the spring and summer of 1946, reveals just how distant Camus had grown from the “official philosophy” of Saint-Germain-des-Près. Indeed, Camus had come to reject completely the cult of ideological revolution inspired by a “messianism” that is indistinguishable from “fanaticism.” This unbeliever, however, refused to reject the sacred tout court. He found himself increasingly attracted to a Greek thinking that was not essentially historical and that affirmed values that “are preexistent.” He forthrightly declared himself “against modern existentialism,” as well as opposed to messianic, totalitarian socialism.

    By then, Camus was well on his way to the recovery of moderation grounded in an appreciation of limits and the firmest rejection of the ideological justification of murder. This recovery would find its finest expression in his 1951 book, L’homme révolté (or The Rebel in English). In the two interview-portraits appended to the volume, one from the New Yorker and the other from the New York Post, Camus expressed his displeasure at being assimilated to the camp of existentialism. He was not content with pessimism as the final word, opting instead for hope grounded in dialogue and respect for human dignity. He freely invoked Plato’s Socrates in that regard in some of his major writings from this period.

    As the noted Camus scholar Alice Kaplan writes in her lucid introduction to the volume, Camus’ “philosophizing” forms only a backdrop, even if an essential one, to these travel notebooks. This is above all “observational writing,” an artful account of choses vues (things seen). In them, we discover the man, as much or more than the thinker – at once curious, excited, witty, ironic and, often, weary. He is always coming down with, or recovering from, flu and fever, with a regularity that is alarming. Although he never acknowledges it even to himself, at least in writing, Camus was dealing with the residues of tuberculosis. This makes the spirit that shines through even more remarkable, and the illness and exhaustion more understandable.

    The second of the two travel notebooks to the Americas in this volume provides a record of Camus’ two-month trip, by ship, from Marseilles to Dakar, then on to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, in the summer of 1949. We witness Camus suffering from more serious bouts of illness, fatigue at seeing the “human face” too many times in a concentrated period of time, and from an occasionally deep melancholy whose source is never acknowledged by the author. We learn, however, from Kaplan that in 1948 Camus reignited his love affair with the Spanish actress Maria Casarès after a three-year interruption (this despite the fact that the French writer was married and the father of young twin sons). Camus remained lovestruck until his death in a car crash in 1960, causing no small amount of misery for all involved. This otherwise thoroughly decent man largely exempted affairs of the heart from supervision by his rigorous standards of moral responsibility. In South America in 1949, he “suffers from feelings of isolation and melancholy,” as Kaplan puts it, as a result of his separation from Casarès, and the considerable delays in his mail from her catching up with him.

    As the notebooks richly illustrate, Camus was a master of observation. Even on the ship from Le Havre to New York, Camus describes the varied characters and personalities he meets in a frank, enjoyable, but never biting way. Things are very tight on the SS Oregon, but Camus does not unduly complain. His descriptions of the sea – at times calm, also rough, and more often beautiful – reveal an artist’s power of description and a philosophical poet’s meditations on the natural order of things. Nature remains a powerful standard of judgment for Camus, as well as a source of solace, and a powerful reminder of constancy and change. As Kaplan points out, when the city is “crass,” when people are “indigestible,” Camus turns his contemplative gaze to the sea. He revealingly writes: “I’ve always been able to make peace with things out at sea, and for a moment the infinite solitude does me good, though I can’t help but feel all the world’s tears are rolling atop the sea now.” Torn between commitment and contemplation, the Algerian-born Camus  remained a quintessential child of the Mediterranean.

    Camus shared some of the prejudices of the French intellectual class, including, arguably, an excessive dislike for the bourgeois, the mercantile, the industrial and the utilitarian. He is at first overwhelmed by the vulgarity of New York, and the inhuman character of its skyscrapers. (He wittily observes that, thankfully, human beings do not always look up.) But the city grows on him. He admires its energy, and the gregariousness and generosity of Americans. He makes many friends in the publishing and intellectual worlds, including a crucial one with his longtime publisher, Blanche Knopf. He enjoyed going to a lively bar in the down-and-out Bowery with his friends, and taking strolls with French and American friends alike. He was fully aware of America’s “race problem” but avoided constant moralizing about it. He took to the passion and energy of black music.

    His talk at Columbia University, “The Crisis of Man,” read in French, drew an oversized crowd. It brilliantly sketched his ongoing efforts to move beyond political and philosophical pessimism and negation. Thus, while remaining eminently French-Algerian and European in character and outlook, Camus avoided anything that smacked of fashionable “anti-Americanism.” His moderate and humane libertarian socialism was largely devoid of utopian illusions, and he never gave way to inhuman abstractions. And with the one significant exception, he practiced what he preached.

    Camus was even more famous by the time he travelled to South America in 1949. The Brazil he describes is a half-Western country, racially divided, and with “a framework of modernity” barely covering its searing passions and ideological tensions. Camus meets brilliant and talented poets, strange intellectuals, beautiful and boorish society ladies, and sees the full array of semi-pagan “Black Catholicism” on display. He visits a favela in Rio de Janeiro and is struck by the good will of its inhabitants, as well as their poverty. He witnesses macumbas and hours-long dances where the participants are seemingly possessed. He is exhausted by meeting after meeting and dinner after dinner. He is charmed to find an Afro-Brazilian theater group putting on a version of his play Caligula in a samba hall, but surprised to see this satire of Hitlerite despotism turned into a “sensual, flirtatious dance,” as Alice Kaplan puts it. In the Brazil of 1949, “Hitler is a distant reference.”

    Camus’ visit to Argentina becomes an “unofficial” one to protest a ban on the performance by an Argentinian troupe of one of his plays. During his four-day visit to Chile, its alluring cities and towns crowded between the Andes and the sea, Camus witnesses public unrest over an increase in subway fares (a perennial occurrence in that country) and the outlawing of the Communist party (fully Stalinist at the time, one might add). An exhausted Camus flies back to Paris this time in what he tellingly describes as “a metal box.”

    In Latin America, Camus delivered his powerful text “The Time of Murderers,” published in French that year and a portent of what is to come in L’homme révolté. I recommend that American readers of this fine, inviting book follow up by reading “The Crisis of Man” (1946) and “Time of the Murderers” (1949) in Albert Camus, Speaking Out: Lectures and Speeches, 1937-1958 (Vintage, 2021). There one finds Camus at his wisest, most dignified, and humane, a permanent contemporary.