This is almost exactly how I interpreted this action. The cost was low, and it plays great on TV. It provides a sugar high to his supporters, who are still bragging about how grateful the Venezuelans are for Trump having freed them.
It’s also a very inexpensive way to exert a great deal of influence on the leadership of the rest of the hemisphere. Every chief of state of a small country on the outs with Trump has a new concern that they might be kidnapped and jailed. They can’t assume that Trump won’t do things that would have previously been considered too crazy to imagine. Cuban leadership now has concerns not just about the disruption of trade with Venezuela, but they also must be very concerned about personal safety.
I think you've thoroughly misread Trump on Venezuela. There is approximately no chance that Maduro was seized with no coordination from anyone inside Venezuela. The deals were already in the works prior to Maduro being seized.
If Trump can go in and take Maduro, he can go in and take anyone, and everyone in Venezuela knows it. As Teddy R said, "Talk softly and carry a big stick." Trump has said that second strike has proved to be unnecessary. Think a moment about why it's not necessary.
Certainly Venezuela is not unique. There was Noriega begore him, and he probably wasn't as murderous as Maduro. The CIA has been nation-building around the world for over half a century. That's a polite of saying they've been installing governments and toppling them as they see fit.
I think it's time to let go of the mantra that Trump is evil and incompetent. He is neither. He is the sharpest president in my adult lifetime, and my adult lifetime goes back to JFK. What flummoxes so many people is that Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman whose life has not been about taking meetings and fabricating top-heavy ideologies. His life has been about getting things done by the most direct means possible.
We've had ten years of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. It's time for progressives to finally recognize that they are the problem. They are the out of touch establishment. They are the intellectually decrepit, morally decayed problem that must be overcome. Trump is overcoming it.
I agree with this analysis. It's impossible to understand or anticipate Trump without centering his sense of entertainment. He despises anything and everything _boring_.
It's not a strategy, it's a calling. Capturing Maduro is exciting, dramatic! Figuring out what to do next, boring. Boring to him and, he knows, boring to most people. This is his political gift. That he has a sense of what people want to pay attention to.
Taking out a Dictator in our hemisphere is more than an ego trip - it's just good sense. It sends a clear message to allies and axes that we have are willing and able to shift the axis of power back in our favor, particularly in our own backyard and the next leader of Venezuela will ultimately act in her own best interests which will finally line up with the best interests of the citizens of Venezuela.
It occurs to me that, in the context of foreign affairs, a “playbook” is simply the application of a doctrine. Just because fossilized foreign-policy bureaucrats and experts are unwilling or unable to fit events in Venezuela into a formal doctrinal framework—armed with PhD theses and millions of inconsequential words—does not mean that this particular playbook was not well thought out. It may, in fact, reflect a coherent doctrine and could even prove successful more quickly than legacy doctrinaire actions (or inactions).
I disagree with this analysis but it was interesting to read because it really is the voice of the New York Times establishment. Nothing new, nothing but the same stylistic critique. The claim that the Venezuelan people will be worse off is same petulant rhetoric we have seen a thousand times.
Here is something more substantial from RR Reno:
“In one fashion or another, Trump’s critics envision a renewal of the rules-based order….The Trump White House thinks otherwise. It regards the post–Cold War system as a cause of the relative decline in American power. What’s needed is a new approach, one that recognizes the reality of significant adversaries and seeks to reestablish the cultural, economic, and military foundations for American predominance in an interest-based rather than rules-based global order.”
Your rules based global order was a nonsense, it is well established that it created a vast crisis in the west.
The decaptation of the bolivarian state in Venezuela is of massive importance on the world stage.
Why are you liberals afraid of power? I think you find it icky.
“So you ask your priest: if not God King and church what would I believe? Who is against God and king and church? And your priest said: Satan. And so thinking logically you became a Satanist. This probably happened to you except it wasn’t a priest but a guidance counselor. The way the world works, never changes. “
Yes, because the alternative is sleepwalking into another great war (which seems to be what's going on).
I was willing to give Trump a minor kudo if he installed the winner of the Venezuelan election in '24, but all he's done is cut one of the hydra's heads off and applied a tourniquet to its neck. That isn't a "decapitation of the bolivarian state"; it's still there and nothing significant has changed (except for Maduro himself). May as well have kidnapped Chavez and replaced him with Maduro while he was alive.
Blood night you left out fear and self preservation. The remaining leadership of Venezuela have a very different frame of reference. They will be quiescent.
And for Trump it was incomprehensible to support Machado because she got the Nobel Peace Prize and rubbed it in his face by dedicating it to him. For the malignant narcissist, that was pure provocation.
I understand what you mean about control. Control is the honest intent to create a rules based order, an attempt to create standards. It is the desire to avoid just naked, power politics. This is good, and sincere but it doesn’t work and can’t be made to work. It is wrong headed. It is the default position of our liberal elite and its application since the end of the Cold War has been a disaster.
The opposite of the rules based order is a return to interest based order. This does not mean a lack of control. Actions can still be measured against standards of decency. RR Reno:
“A well-established rule of law brings tranquility of order. It need not be perfect in its justice. The mere existence of reasonably decent and predictable laws is sufficient. The post–Cold War ambition to create a global rule of law (rules-based order) reflected that ideal. Unfortunately, global realities have dictated otherwise.”
For instance, the Catholic theological take on war:
“The Catholic Church advances a doctrine of just war. It includes many criteria for assessing reasons to go to war, as well as moral constraints on how warfare is conducted. These elements of just war doctrine are rooted in the biblical presumption in favor of peace. The morally licit use of violence aims to restore and secure a tranquility of order.”
The presumption in favour of peace and the security of a tranquil order are the control you want.
Honest question: do you think america’s hegemony - rules based order - has successfully created a tranquil order?
Second question: - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes : who shall watch the watchmen?
The American liberal elite have failed as watchmen.
I agree that the post-Cold War "rules-based order" has often been applied inconsistently and failed to achieve a truly tranquil world. However, replacing it with an interest-based order or Reno’s "strong gods" is a step backward, not forward.
The Trap of "Interests": An "interest-based order" is frequently just a euphemism for "might makes right." Without a secular, universal framework of rules, we return to a world where powerful nations and institutions dictate terms based on their own survival and expansion. This is the definition of authoritarianism, just under a different name.
The Problem with Theological Order: Using Catholic "Just War" doctrine or other "strong gods" as a moral compass assumes a shared religious authority that doesn't exist in a pluralistic world. For those of us who don't subscribe to these dogmas, these "standards of decency" feel less like a path to peace and more like an imposition of specific religious values over individual liberty.
You ask, "Who shall watch the watchmen?" The answer shouldn't be a return to traditionalist authority or religious hierarchies. The solution to a failed elite isn't to hand power to a different, more dogmatic one; it is to strengthen secular accountability, transparency, and democratic participation. We don't need "strong gods" to find a presumption in favor of peace. We need human-centric systems that prioritize human rights and rational diplomacy over both the failed "liberal hegemony" and the "strong gods" of the past.
Wow a polite man on the internet. (I should strive to be like you.)
Your retort I think is a very solid explication of the weaknesses of my position. You are right in almost all facets of your argument. Almost.
I didn’t read Reno’s book just the analysis of NS Lyons. I will post it for anyone eavesdropping on our conversation.
I would say that Lyon’s analysis is in agreement with your admonitions, he spoke of the dangers and I think you have correctly identified the dangers inherent in an interest based order. You are right and sufficiently right that you need not ring off the litany of horrors from the 20th century to substantiate your position. Interest based power politics is an invitation too much evil.
But here’s where you are wrong. The rules based order is a Fantasia: non-serviam, it’s not doable, never was, never will be and your attempt to try harder will fail.
That’s not just me. This is my judgment. Yes I am a piker, But I am also correct. The rules based order is a fallacy because it is unachievable, what a religious person would call a heresy.
“The deep psychological root of liberalism appears to be an unwillingness to accept reality as it is, a morbid obsession with its defects, and paranoid tendency to exaggerate them.”
Professor Edward Fesser, the post liberal Substack
Or
“Basic teaching of conservatism is humility in the face of the intractableness of reality and acknowledgement of limits.”
I am not learned, but I have been around 62 years and I judge the liberal position wrong.
Liberal and communist polities are both perpetually poised in the now and the not yet, between the emergence from the dim night of unreason and the final triumph .”
I firmly believe that we can disagree and still be polite and respectful towards one another ;)
While I respect your 62 years of experience, the argument that a rules-based order is a "heresy" or a "Fantasia" relies on a pessimistic view of human nature that I simply don't share. Here is why the post-liberal critique misses the mark:
"Reality" as a Tool of Compliance: When Feser speaks of "accepting reality as it is," it often sounds like a demand to accept traditional hierarchies as they are. For an atheist, reality isn't a divinely ordained set of "limits" we must humbly bow to; it is a set of conditions we work to improve. Labeling the desire to fix systemic defects as a "morbid obsession" is a convenient way to silence those who are marginalized by the "tranquil order" you defend.
The Pragmatism of Rules: You call the rules-based order a fallacy because it is "unachievable." This is a straw man. No rational person believes in a "final triumph" or a perfect world. However, we have seen that secular, rules-based systems—flawed as they are—consistently provide more liberty and less suffering than the "interest-based" or "theological" orders of the past. The pursuit isn't for perfection; it’s for accountability.
The Trap of "Humility": The "humility" mentioned by conservatives often masks a very arrogant assumption: that they alone understand the "intractable" nature of reality. Adrian Vermeule’s critique of liberal polities being "poised in the now and the not yet" is an attempt to map religious eschatology onto secular politics. As an atheist, I don't care about "the dim night of unreason" or "final triumphs"—I care about whether people are free today from arbitrary power and dogmatic imposition.
The Bottom Line:
You ask "who shall watch the watchmen," but your solution is to replace the watchmen with "strong gods" or "interest-based" power that acknowledges no universal rules at all. To me, that isn't humility or realism—it’s an invitation to authoritarianism. I’d rather struggle with the "Fantasia" of trying to hold power to account than surrender to a "tranquility" defined by someone else's dogma.
Rules are what strong nations impose on weak nations to promote the interests of strong nations. American ideals are attractive to many and were presented as magic, suited for anyone. They aren't.
“Power is habitual obedience; Regime change is a structured discontinuity in the habits of obedience. It must never be forgotten that regime change is a change to obeying something else.”
Science or freedom or equality or patriotism, cannot rule; man can rule in the name of these abstractions or others.
Rules based order was never real, it was a fraud and a crockpot theory, and now light is shining through the cracks in the pot. This is what it looks like. Learn to love it.
Trump's playbook does command many of his actions. The element of surprise and attention-grabbing headlines are two foundational keys. However, the playbook is not entirely his. There is another more conniving and ideological force at work. He has neither the mental capacity nor the perseverance to accomplish the more complex manipulations of the government which have been enacted during his reign. He is no policy wonk but someone who is a wonk is pulling the strings. The Miller/Vought/Roberts (Kevin, not John) triumvirate is a candidate for the wonkish position. They think more bigly than Don while being able to manipulate the small details to great effect. Hemispheric dominion is one of their goals and Greenland and Venezuela are part of that plan. This, of course, resembles Putin's and Xi's world views. If US forces can pluck a dictator out of his home country while his own personal military which is dedicated to defending him is unable to prevent the extradition, what will other South American leaders conclude? They could be next. The Triumvirate wants other South and Central American leaders to live in fear that they too could wind up in a US prison. As Stephen Miller recently stated "It's all about the power". So yes, there is a strange depressing logic to Trump's international policy. It just isn't Trump's.
👍 Reminds me of a cartoon that was making the rounds during the 2016 and/or 2024 US elections about the proverbial "lesser of two weevils".
Trump in a nutshell. The way the world -- and the Democrat Party and their ilk -- were going then -- your own 2024 "Democrats" [won't] "Give Up on Wokeness Anytime Soon" being a case in point -- more less "justifying" the conclusion that, given that the patient was virtually on death's doorstep, virtually any "cure" was worth a shot. Even if the "cure" may turn out to somewhat worse than the "disease".
You are not addressing the point of imposing respect (you are a bit when you mention Maduro's dance).
Isn't there this feeling among an increasingly frustrated part of the population that for too long the United States of America, burried under the weight of culpability and shame, has accepted to be humiliated and not respected, despite what is seen by this same population as all the immense efforts and costs (financially and human) their country has spent over the past 8 decades to help other countries and people?
Hence, one core tenant of Trump's playbook (and probably other nationalist forces in the Western world) may just be to look to fulfill this thirst for respect and, in the USA case, just impose it by brute forte to ensure the "others" think twice next time?
How would your analysis change, if you took into account that forward-thinking insiders like Thiel, Musk and Andreessen support the playbook because in their view the Old World Order cannot be continued in an age of increasingly scarce material resources and degrading natural ecosystems on which our lives depend.
Correct me if I am wrong but as it is understood there are five precepts of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Those can be read as objectives or more generally as themes:
America First Sovereignty – prioritizing national independence, trade protectionism, stricter immigration controls, and skepticism of global institutions.
Executive Empowerment – strengthening the President’s authority, reducing the power of the administrative state, and reasserting unified control of the executive branch.
Cultural-Traditional Restoration – reinforcing traditional social values, limiting federal activism in cultural issues (such as education or gender policy), and emphasizing family, faith and national identity.
Economic Re-Industrialization – rebuilding U.S. manufacturing, imposing reciprocal tariffs, simplifying taxes, and shifting away from globalization toward domestic production.
State-Centric Governance & Downsizing – reducing federal intervention, devolving power to states and localities, and minimizing federal regulatory reach and oversight.
This all sounds reasonable if unachievable.
The era of benign American hegemony is over. The world is changing and America unlike other superpowers before it has not used the pathway of colonialism – the imposition by force of occupation and introduction of a foreign culture like The Babylonians, the Greeks, The Romans, The English , the French , Germany to a less extent and Russia has done in past, history.
Pax Romana, Pax Britanica and now Pax Americana have all in history provided stability and prosperity to those countries that enjoyed the benefits of these other powerful countries . Everything that has a beginning, has an end and at the cusp of change those individuals, countries and even hemispheres have to readjust at times of change.
“America has conquered the globe through Coca Cola,” it was once said, and not through the methods used in past world superpowers, mentioned.
Communism was defeated by America, with the support of it's European allies, true - Reagan and SDI helped and some say America was the back stop to save all the world from becoming communist, which some would say is correct and others would point out that the economic ideology of communism was never, and will never “conquer the world.” That is another topic for future discussion.
Trump and his administration has put the countries on the western and the democratic world on notice, and America is warning all other countries –with values akin to itself, - democracy and capitalism, Christianity…yes… that there are those countries in this world that don’t have these same ideals and furthermore threaten the Western world with their ideology, who will be taking note.
So this American administration has published in that recent declaration on foreign policy, that “you are either with us in America” or you are with “the enemy.” As the country with the most powerful military on the planet, America can and will in the foreseeable future, wield the biggest stick.
The Trump administration has chosen this pathway to warn and introduce this change, that is now happening, a different pathway as to what was before, since the end of WW II in 1945 and the defeat of Communism 1993 or there abouts.
The jury is out at the moment as to weather Trump and his administration are correct in their methodology to effect this change, and I am not a student versed enough in geo-politics to offer an opinion whether Trump and his Administration will succeed.
All I know as a mere peon with the belief that the only way the western world ideals can be destroyed is not from the enemy from without- Islam being a major player, but the contrary, it will be “from within” that the western world is most likely to be brought to its knees – identity politics, climate alarmism, DEI, two tier policing, the rejection of meritocracy and the list of what might destroy our western democracy form within is long.
Trump has pointed out some of these failings. He and his administration have a different view on what the leftist MSM would have us believe will make the World a “better place.”
Time will tell whether or not America is doing the right thing for the western world. Trump believes he his doing the best thing for America…. And yes, for those in his ruling class, which has always been the case whether the ruling class is communist, capitalist, authoritarian or a hybrid version of these forms of government.
Immediate, distracting Trumpian headlines at minimal risk, for sure. But also an opportunity to fraudulently claim credit for low gasoline prices in the US leading up to the 2026 congressional elections. When in fact, it's OPEC that's driving down global oil prices to regain market share lost during the US shale fracking boom, by creating a short-term oil glut. And China's only helping them create a glut, by hastening their transition to renewable energy resources to further reduce their dependence on imported oil. US fossil fuel consumers are the suckers, as Trump cancels massive new US offshore wind development. Because his BigOil&Gas friends want to power all those big new AI data centers with fossil gas from West Virgina, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, etc.
Here's another benefit of Trump's use of the element of surprise. It makes it virtually impossible for Congress, the legal system, the press, or the public to protest before the event. Even if someone guesses what he's going to do next, Trump will dance around it so as to dodge any preemptive action. You hint at this in the article but I thought it worth observing explicitly.
DJT will go for the lowest effort/highest impact in terms of his his personal benefit in this/his “TV-show” so far I agree. with regard to the strategic policy agenda i tend to disagree. Too simplistic. He is in the footsteps of his predecessors: for the Venezuela part it is 20 years (dominance in the US backyard) . For Greenland its about long term consequences of climate change (trade routes) , for ICE its about economic inequalities ( immigration control). none of this is an invention of DJT or his MAGA or the Techbros ( interest groups). If the “show” is a cheap one , is open for debate. i doubt it. ask the Chinese government having spend above 10 billion USD on venezuelan debt.
John Boyd, former Lieutenant Colonel, whose work on the OODA loop was a foundational part of Mission Command doctrine, might hold a different view. He talked about the ideas of Cheng and chi energy. Chi is the element of surprise. Cheng is the main drive. We're seeing a lot of chi. I wonder where the Cheng is?
This is almost exactly how I interpreted this action. The cost was low, and it plays great on TV. It provides a sugar high to his supporters, who are still bragging about how grateful the Venezuelans are for Trump having freed them.
It’s also a very inexpensive way to exert a great deal of influence on the leadership of the rest of the hemisphere. Every chief of state of a small country on the outs with Trump has a new concern that they might be kidnapped and jailed. They can’t assume that Trump won’t do things that would have previously been considered too crazy to imagine. Cuban leadership now has concerns not just about the disruption of trade with Venezuela, but they also must be very concerned about personal safety.
I think you've thoroughly misread Trump on Venezuela. There is approximately no chance that Maduro was seized with no coordination from anyone inside Venezuela. The deals were already in the works prior to Maduro being seized.
If Trump can go in and take Maduro, he can go in and take anyone, and everyone in Venezuela knows it. As Teddy R said, "Talk softly and carry a big stick." Trump has said that second strike has proved to be unnecessary. Think a moment about why it's not necessary.
Certainly Venezuela is not unique. There was Noriega begore him, and he probably wasn't as murderous as Maduro. The CIA has been nation-building around the world for over half a century. That's a polite of saying they've been installing governments and toppling them as they see fit.
I think it's time to let go of the mantra that Trump is evil and incompetent. He is neither. He is the sharpest president in my adult lifetime, and my adult lifetime goes back to JFK. What flummoxes so many people is that Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman whose life has not been about taking meetings and fabricating top-heavy ideologies. His life has been about getting things done by the most direct means possible.
We've had ten years of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. It's time for progressives to finally recognize that they are the problem. They are the out of touch establishment. They are the intellectually decrepit, morally decayed problem that must be overcome. Trump is overcoming it.
I agree with this analysis. It's impossible to understand or anticipate Trump without centering his sense of entertainment. He despises anything and everything _boring_.
It's not a strategy, it's a calling. Capturing Maduro is exciting, dramatic! Figuring out what to do next, boring. Boring to him and, he knows, boring to most people. This is his political gift. That he has a sense of what people want to pay attention to.
Taking out a Dictator in our hemisphere is more than an ego trip - it's just good sense. It sends a clear message to allies and axes that we have are willing and able to shift the axis of power back in our favor, particularly in our own backyard and the next leader of Venezuela will ultimately act in her own best interests which will finally line up with the best interests of the citizens of Venezuela.
Now apply that to Russia and Ukraine.
It occurs to me that, in the context of foreign affairs, a “playbook” is simply the application of a doctrine. Just because fossilized foreign-policy bureaucrats and experts are unwilling or unable to fit events in Venezuela into a formal doctrinal framework—armed with PhD theses and millions of inconsequential words—does not mean that this particular playbook was not well thought out. It may, in fact, reflect a coherent doctrine and could even prove successful more quickly than legacy doctrinaire actions (or inactions).
I disagree with this analysis but it was interesting to read because it really is the voice of the New York Times establishment. Nothing new, nothing but the same stylistic critique. The claim that the Venezuelan people will be worse off is same petulant rhetoric we have seen a thousand times.
Here is something more substantial from RR Reno:
“In one fashion or another, Trump’s critics envision a renewal of the rules-based order….The Trump White House thinks otherwise. It regards the post–Cold War system as a cause of the relative decline in American power. What’s needed is a new approach, one that recognizes the reality of significant adversaries and seeks to reestablish the cultural, economic, and military foundations for American predominance in an interest-based rather than rules-based global order.”
Your rules based global order was a nonsense, it is well established that it created a vast crisis in the west.
The decaptation of the bolivarian state in Venezuela is of massive importance on the world stage.
Why are you liberals afraid of power? I think you find it icky.
“So you ask your priest: if not God King and church what would I believe? Who is against God and king and church? And your priest said: Satan. And so thinking logically you became a Satanist. This probably happened to you except it wasn’t a priest but a guidance counselor. The way the world works, never changes. “
Not afraid of power. But of power without control, hence the rule based system.
Yes, because the alternative is sleepwalking into another great war (which seems to be what's going on).
I was willing to give Trump a minor kudo if he installed the winner of the Venezuelan election in '24, but all he's done is cut one of the hydra's heads off and applied a tourniquet to its neck. That isn't a "decapitation of the bolivarian state"; it's still there and nothing significant has changed (except for Maduro himself). May as well have kidnapped Chavez and replaced him with Maduro while he was alive.
Blood night you left out fear and self preservation. The remaining leadership of Venezuela have a very different frame of reference. They will be quiescent.
And for Trump it was incomprehensible to support Machado because she got the Nobel Peace Prize and rubbed it in his face by dedicating it to him. For the malignant narcissist, that was pure provocation.
I understand what you mean about control. Control is the honest intent to create a rules based order, an attempt to create standards. It is the desire to avoid just naked, power politics. This is good, and sincere but it doesn’t work and can’t be made to work. It is wrong headed. It is the default position of our liberal elite and its application since the end of the Cold War has been a disaster.
The opposite of the rules based order is a return to interest based order. This does not mean a lack of control. Actions can still be measured against standards of decency. RR Reno:
“A well-established rule of law brings tranquility of order. It need not be perfect in its justice. The mere existence of reasonably decent and predictable laws is sufficient. The post–Cold War ambition to create a global rule of law (rules-based order) reflected that ideal. Unfortunately, global realities have dictated otherwise.”
For instance, the Catholic theological take on war:
“The Catholic Church advances a doctrine of just war. It includes many criteria for assessing reasons to go to war, as well as moral constraints on how warfare is conducted. These elements of just war doctrine are rooted in the biblical presumption in favor of peace. The morally licit use of violence aims to restore and secure a tranquility of order.”
The presumption in favour of peace and the security of a tranquil order are the control you want.
Honest question: do you think america’s hegemony - rules based order - has successfully created a tranquil order?
Second question: - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes : who shall watch the watchmen?
The American liberal elite have failed as watchmen.
I agree that the post-Cold War "rules-based order" has often been applied inconsistently and failed to achieve a truly tranquil world. However, replacing it with an interest-based order or Reno’s "strong gods" is a step backward, not forward.
The Trap of "Interests": An "interest-based order" is frequently just a euphemism for "might makes right." Without a secular, universal framework of rules, we return to a world where powerful nations and institutions dictate terms based on their own survival and expansion. This is the definition of authoritarianism, just under a different name.
The Problem with Theological Order: Using Catholic "Just War" doctrine or other "strong gods" as a moral compass assumes a shared religious authority that doesn't exist in a pluralistic world. For those of us who don't subscribe to these dogmas, these "standards of decency" feel less like a path to peace and more like an imposition of specific religious values over individual liberty.
You ask, "Who shall watch the watchmen?" The answer shouldn't be a return to traditionalist authority or religious hierarchies. The solution to a failed elite isn't to hand power to a different, more dogmatic one; it is to strengthen secular accountability, transparency, and democratic participation. We don't need "strong gods" to find a presumption in favor of peace. We need human-centric systems that prioritize human rights and rational diplomacy over both the failed "liberal hegemony" and the "strong gods" of the past.
Wow a polite man on the internet. (I should strive to be like you.)
Your retort I think is a very solid explication of the weaknesses of my position. You are right in almost all facets of your argument. Almost.
I didn’t read Reno’s book just the analysis of NS Lyons. I will post it for anyone eavesdropping on our conversation.
I would say that Lyon’s analysis is in agreement with your admonitions, he spoke of the dangers and I think you have correctly identified the dangers inherent in an interest based order. You are right and sufficiently right that you need not ring off the litany of horrors from the 20th century to substantiate your position. Interest based power politics is an invitation too much evil.
But here’s where you are wrong. The rules based order is a Fantasia: non-serviam, it’s not doable, never was, never will be and your attempt to try harder will fail.
That’s not just me. This is my judgment. Yes I am a piker, But I am also correct. The rules based order is a fallacy because it is unachievable, what a religious person would call a heresy.
“The deep psychological root of liberalism appears to be an unwillingness to accept reality as it is, a morbid obsession with its defects, and paranoid tendency to exaggerate them.”
Professor Edward Fesser, the post liberal Substack
Or
“Basic teaching of conservatism is humility in the face of the intractableness of reality and acknowledgement of limits.”
I am not learned, but I have been around 62 years and I judge the liberal position wrong.
Liberal and communist polities are both perpetually poised in the now and the not yet, between the emergence from the dim night of unreason and the final triumph .”
Adrian Vermeule
Keep up the good work. You’re a very nice fella.
I firmly believe that we can disagree and still be polite and respectful towards one another ;)
While I respect your 62 years of experience, the argument that a rules-based order is a "heresy" or a "Fantasia" relies on a pessimistic view of human nature that I simply don't share. Here is why the post-liberal critique misses the mark:
"Reality" as a Tool of Compliance: When Feser speaks of "accepting reality as it is," it often sounds like a demand to accept traditional hierarchies as they are. For an atheist, reality isn't a divinely ordained set of "limits" we must humbly bow to; it is a set of conditions we work to improve. Labeling the desire to fix systemic defects as a "morbid obsession" is a convenient way to silence those who are marginalized by the "tranquil order" you defend.
The Pragmatism of Rules: You call the rules-based order a fallacy because it is "unachievable." This is a straw man. No rational person believes in a "final triumph" or a perfect world. However, we have seen that secular, rules-based systems—flawed as they are—consistently provide more liberty and less suffering than the "interest-based" or "theological" orders of the past. The pursuit isn't for perfection; it’s for accountability.
The Trap of "Humility": The "humility" mentioned by conservatives often masks a very arrogant assumption: that they alone understand the "intractable" nature of reality. Adrian Vermeule’s critique of liberal polities being "poised in the now and the not yet" is an attempt to map religious eschatology onto secular politics. As an atheist, I don't care about "the dim night of unreason" or "final triumphs"—I care about whether people are free today from arbitrary power and dogmatic imposition.
The Bottom Line:
You ask "who shall watch the watchmen," but your solution is to replace the watchmen with "strong gods" or "interest-based" power that acknowledges no universal rules at all. To me, that isn't humility or realism—it’s an invitation to authoritarianism. I’d rather struggle with the "Fantasia" of trying to hold power to account than surrender to a "tranquility" defined by someone else's dogma.
I’ll leave it at that
https://open.substack.com/pub/theupheaval/p/american-strong-gods?r=j0s6f&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
Thank you for being polite TWP.
Rules are what strong nations impose on weak nations to promote the interests of strong nations. American ideals are attractive to many and were presented as magic, suited for anyone. They aren't.
“Power is habitual obedience; Regime change is a structured discontinuity in the habits of obedience. It must never be forgotten that regime change is a change to obeying something else.”
Science or freedom or equality or patriotism, cannot rule; man can rule in the name of these abstractions or others.
Rules based order was never real, it was a fraud and a crockpot theory, and now light is shining through the cracks in the pot. This is what it looks like. Learn to love it.
Here is something that must be accounted for:
https://open.substack.com/pub/graymirror/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral?r=j0s6f&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
In my estimation, if you disagree with this, you are wrong.
Trump's playbook does command many of his actions. The element of surprise and attention-grabbing headlines are two foundational keys. However, the playbook is not entirely his. There is another more conniving and ideological force at work. He has neither the mental capacity nor the perseverance to accomplish the more complex manipulations of the government which have been enacted during his reign. He is no policy wonk but someone who is a wonk is pulling the strings. The Miller/Vought/Roberts (Kevin, not John) triumvirate is a candidate for the wonkish position. They think more bigly than Don while being able to manipulate the small details to great effect. Hemispheric dominion is one of their goals and Greenland and Venezuela are part of that plan. This, of course, resembles Putin's and Xi's world views. If US forces can pluck a dictator out of his home country while his own personal military which is dedicated to defending him is unable to prevent the extradition, what will other South American leaders conclude? They could be next. The Triumvirate wants other South and Central American leaders to live in fear that they too could wind up in a US prison. As Stephen Miller recently stated "It's all about the power". So yes, there is a strange depressing logic to Trump's international policy. It just isn't Trump's.
👍 Reminds me of a cartoon that was making the rounds during the 2016 and/or 2024 US elections about the proverbial "lesser of two weevils".
Trump in a nutshell. The way the world -- and the Democrat Party and their ilk -- were going then -- your own 2024 "Democrats" [won't] "Give Up on Wokeness Anytime Soon" being a case in point -- more less "justifying" the conclusion that, given that the patient was virtually on death's doorstep, virtually any "cure" was worth a shot. Even if the "cure" may turn out to somewhat worse than the "disease".
You are not addressing the point of imposing respect (you are a bit when you mention Maduro's dance).
Isn't there this feeling among an increasingly frustrated part of the population that for too long the United States of America, burried under the weight of culpability and shame, has accepted to be humiliated and not respected, despite what is seen by this same population as all the immense efforts and costs (financially and human) their country has spent over the past 8 decades to help other countries and people?
Hence, one core tenant of Trump's playbook (and probably other nationalist forces in the Western world) may just be to look to fulfill this thirst for respect and, in the USA case, just impose it by brute forte to ensure the "others" think twice next time?
How would your analysis change, if you took into account that forward-thinking insiders like Thiel, Musk and Andreessen support the playbook because in their view the Old World Order cannot be continued in an age of increasingly scarce material resources and degrading natural ecosystems on which our lives depend.
Yascha, one of your best articles.
Correct me if I am wrong but as it is understood there are five precepts of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Those can be read as objectives or more generally as themes:
America First Sovereignty – prioritizing national independence, trade protectionism, stricter immigration controls, and skepticism of global institutions.
Executive Empowerment – strengthening the President’s authority, reducing the power of the administrative state, and reasserting unified control of the executive branch.
Cultural-Traditional Restoration – reinforcing traditional social values, limiting federal activism in cultural issues (such as education or gender policy), and emphasizing family, faith and national identity.
Economic Re-Industrialization – rebuilding U.S. manufacturing, imposing reciprocal tariffs, simplifying taxes, and shifting away from globalization toward domestic production.
State-Centric Governance & Downsizing – reducing federal intervention, devolving power to states and localities, and minimizing federal regulatory reach and oversight.
This all sounds reasonable if unachievable.
The era of benign American hegemony is over. The world is changing and America unlike other superpowers before it has not used the pathway of colonialism – the imposition by force of occupation and introduction of a foreign culture like The Babylonians, the Greeks, The Romans, The English , the French , Germany to a less extent and Russia has done in past, history.
Pax Romana, Pax Britanica and now Pax Americana have all in history provided stability and prosperity to those countries that enjoyed the benefits of these other powerful countries . Everything that has a beginning, has an end and at the cusp of change those individuals, countries and even hemispheres have to readjust at times of change.
“America has conquered the globe through Coca Cola,” it was once said, and not through the methods used in past world superpowers, mentioned.
Communism was defeated by America, with the support of it's European allies, true - Reagan and SDI helped and some say America was the back stop to save all the world from becoming communist, which some would say is correct and others would point out that the economic ideology of communism was never, and will never “conquer the world.” That is another topic for future discussion.
Trump and his administration has put the countries on the western and the democratic world on notice, and America is warning all other countries –with values akin to itself, - democracy and capitalism, Christianity…yes… that there are those countries in this world that don’t have these same ideals and furthermore threaten the Western world with their ideology, who will be taking note.
So this American administration has published in that recent declaration on foreign policy, that “you are either with us in America” or you are with “the enemy.” As the country with the most powerful military on the planet, America can and will in the foreseeable future, wield the biggest stick.
The Trump administration has chosen this pathway to warn and introduce this change, that is now happening, a different pathway as to what was before, since the end of WW II in 1945 and the defeat of Communism 1993 or there abouts.
The jury is out at the moment as to weather Trump and his administration are correct in their methodology to effect this change, and I am not a student versed enough in geo-politics to offer an opinion whether Trump and his Administration will succeed.
All I know as a mere peon with the belief that the only way the western world ideals can be destroyed is not from the enemy from without- Islam being a major player, but the contrary, it will be “from within” that the western world is most likely to be brought to its knees – identity politics, climate alarmism, DEI, two tier policing, the rejection of meritocracy and the list of what might destroy our western democracy form within is long.
Trump has pointed out some of these failings. He and his administration have a different view on what the leftist MSM would have us believe will make the World a “better place.”
Time will tell whether or not America is doing the right thing for the western world. Trump believes he his doing the best thing for America…. And yes, for those in his ruling class, which has always been the case whether the ruling class is communist, capitalist, authoritarian or a hybrid version of these forms of government.
Immediate, distracting Trumpian headlines at minimal risk, for sure. But also an opportunity to fraudulently claim credit for low gasoline prices in the US leading up to the 2026 congressional elections. When in fact, it's OPEC that's driving down global oil prices to regain market share lost during the US shale fracking boom, by creating a short-term oil glut. And China's only helping them create a glut, by hastening their transition to renewable energy resources to further reduce their dependence on imported oil. US fossil fuel consumers are the suckers, as Trump cancels massive new US offshore wind development. Because his BigOil&Gas friends want to power all those big new AI data centers with fossil gas from West Virgina, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, etc.
Here's another benefit of Trump's use of the element of surprise. It makes it virtually impossible for Congress, the legal system, the press, or the public to protest before the event. Even if someone guesses what he's going to do next, Trump will dance around it so as to dodge any preemptive action. You hint at this in the article but I thought it worth observing explicitly.
DJT will go for the lowest effort/highest impact in terms of his his personal benefit in this/his “TV-show” so far I agree. with regard to the strategic policy agenda i tend to disagree. Too simplistic. He is in the footsteps of his predecessors: for the Venezuela part it is 20 years (dominance in the US backyard) . For Greenland its about long term consequences of climate change (trade routes) , for ICE its about economic inequalities ( immigration control). none of this is an invention of DJT or his MAGA or the Techbros ( interest groups). If the “show” is a cheap one , is open for debate. i doubt it. ask the Chinese government having spend above 10 billion USD on venezuelan debt.
John Boyd, former Lieutenant Colonel, whose work on the OODA loop was a foundational part of Mission Command doctrine, might hold a different view. He talked about the ideas of Cheng and chi energy. Chi is the element of surprise. Cheng is the main drive. We're seeing a lot of chi. I wonder where the Cheng is?
Australians wait with baited breath as the list of potential US invasions becomes public knowledge.