All 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats are exposed in the 2026 midterm election. What will the political climate look like after another two years of Donald Trump? Midterms are not kind to incumbents, possibly due to the regular foot-in-mouth disease that breaks out at the dawn of a new administration. It provides additional advantages to an out-party motivated and keen to score hits. The blowback from the gaffe is compounded if it is an affront to the movement’s success in the first place.
Obama had his “… it’s not surprising … they [people in flyover country] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them ….” He added to his list of blunders with the howler, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”, which the reliably left-of-center PolitiFact honored with its 2013 Lie of the Year (see #1). It is much more than gaffes, but they work to illuminate policy goofs.
No wonder the Tea Party entered history, and in the 2010 midterms Democrats surrendered their 79-seat majority in the House and 14-seat advantage in the Senate to a Republican majority of 59 seats and whittled a Democrat edge in the Senate to 4. Republicans swept into control of more statehouses and governor’s mansions during the time of the Obama wrecking ball. The mouth has consequences.
Speed forward to 2025 and Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is tasting his toes with, “Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.” Certainly, that one is easy to demagogue, and Democrats will, but it is not as if he did not take the sock off and contort himself into position. The jump in the prices of everything – and state-sponsored teenage genital mutilation, XY girls in XX girls’ sports, and the Third World moving into the country en masse without restraint – was an affront in voters’ minds November 2024.
Bessent was twisting himself in knots to justify Trump’s tariffs. When an incoherent idea meets the spoken word, get ready for the speaker to be reminded of the need to wash their feet. Tariffs have inflation written all over them, unless they are mitigated by the economic growth hormones of deregulation, tax cuts, sane energy policy, and cheaper financial capital. How much will they limit the damage? Hard to say. Timing and reactions abroad matter a lot.
Trump acknowledges in a rhetorical sleight of hand the harm of the tariff poison. In his speech to Congress, he pandered to farmers and then asked them to bear with him because he knows their exports will be the first to be targeted in retaliation. He asked the rest of the economy to bear with him as well. The foreign reaction to his tariffs was swift. Justin Trudeau of Canada announced (see #2), “Our tariffs will remain in place until the U.S. trade action is withdrawn, and should U.S. tariffs not cease, we are in active and ongoing discussions with provinces and territories to pursue several non-tariff measures.” Mexico and China responded likewise.
Markets did not react any better. The S&P 500, Dow Jones, and Nasdaq Composite fell dramatically on the news (see #2). With Trump injecting himself into trade relationships, it is bad for business, which means it is bad for workers and everyone with a retirement plan. Instability and government intervention are bad, bad.
Why must we cut Trump some slack? Price increases are on the way; that is how tariffs work. So, get ready, Trump’s chief complaint against Biden, inflation, will be magically turned into a blessing by those who flipped like a light switch on the cue of their Pied Piper.
Crony capitalism is not the answer. Government goodies in the form of handouts to highly organized special interests mean costs imposed on everybody else. Trump shovels bennies to the United Steelworkers or the United Auto Workers but nonunion competitors are left to languish, with the consumer left to scramble to balance the checkbook.
The acclaimed economist Mancur Olson staked his academic reputation to his discernment of the socio-economic physics of the naturally skewed incentives to raid the public trough because rewards are targeted but costs are diffuse (see #3). A tightly organized interest (for instance, a large business entity and its allied labor magnificos) will beat out broader and thus more scattered interests (such as competitors and business and personal consumers). Welcome to the Trump mind. He is all into it.
Add it all up and one is left to wonder, can our leaders get any more incoherent?
RogerG
Sources:
1. “Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’”, PolitiFact, at https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
2. “Trump trade war intensifies as tariffs go into place”, Ian Swanson, et al, The Hill, 3/4/2025, at https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5174579-donald-trump-trade-war-intensifies/
3. Look to Mancur Olson’s seminal work, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, 1965. An exploration of the topic can be found in “The Power of Special Interests”, John Samples, CATO Institute, Fall 2010, at https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2010/book-review-lobbying-policy-change-case-gridlock