Introducing The Fix
Behold the first edition of my new weekly round-up of whatever the hell I feel like talking about.
At least once a week, I come across some piece of news or writing that I find especially interesting and want to discuss further. It might be something that illuminates the bigger picture. Or it simply pisses me off. Quite often, it combines both of these elements.
Instead of haranguing my Shih-Tzu or ranting to my wife and kid, it occurred to me that this newsletter might be a more appropriate forum. Thus arose the inspiration for The Fix, a weekly reflection of my thoughts on a given event, trend, book, article, or anything else that happens to drift through my transom (the name implying, rather pretentiously, that readers are getting their “fix” of me, Neil Abrams.)
In time, and if I can keep it up, I might turn The Fix into a regular paid feature. While The Detox has grown substantially in recent months, the number of subscribers who have signed up for the paid option remains pretty scant (about 40 out of 7000-plus).
Considering the relative infrequency of my posts compared to other writers, this is understandable. Yet, as someone who would eventually like to make a living from my writing, it is unsustainable.
This is where The Fix comes in. The Fix will be free for now until I can prove to myself that I can actually put it out every week. If it turns out that I can, I will probably paywall it. Not to worry; my regular posts in The Detox will continue to be offered free of charge.
Just to avoid any confusion, let me reiterate that no matter what becomes of The Fix, The Detox itself will remain as it always has; I will continue publishing my free posts at least as often as I do currently. For free subscribers, in other words, nothing will change. The only change under consideration is the addition of a separate weekly feature—The Fix—that is exclusively for paid subscribers. But even The Fix will stay free for the time being.
Coward-In-Chief
With that out of the way, let us get down to business. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo had a piece out a few days ago about Donald Trump’s increasing tendency to shrink in the face of backlash:
It’s no accident that the trade woes coincide with reverses on other fronts, in Trump’s war with universities, backtracking on some of his more drastic reorganizations of departments, with the Supreme Court. I don’t want to overstate this. Trump and those working for him continue to impose drastic changes on the federal government. They have the power. Lots of things are happening in the background. But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that in a series of high profile confrontations he’s retreating.
I think Marshall is onto something. Trump has displayed a proclivity to back down when challenged. But it is also surprising. Trump, after all, has a long record of doing batshit-crazy things with nary a concern for the inevitable repercussions. Normally, people who act without regard to consequences are unlikely to reverse course once said consequences present themselves, right?
Not Donald Trump, apparently. Consider the following list of his recent climbdowns, practically all of which, for a normal person, would occasion extreme humiliation.
The minute people start resisting, they often find Trump’s wherewithal to be lacking.
Early this month, Trump slapped arbitrary tariffs on every country and penguin-occupied rock in the cosmos and vowed to boot that “MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE.” A week later, on April 9th, he largely abandoned the policy, instituting a 90-day pause on tariffs for most countries. The reason? The markets started to panic, and Trump became frightened.
Last week, financial markets again demonstrated their ability to push him around. What spooked traders this time were his musings about firing the chief of the Federal Reserve. This was classic Trump: Say something totally insane while remaining oblivious to the likely response of powerful constituencies. What he was oblivious to in this instance was the market’s reaction to the prospect of abolishing the independence of the central bank that oversees the world’s reserve currency. So, as soon as the markets started to look askance, he immediately retracted his previous statements and assured everyone that he had “no intention” of dismissing the fed chair.
So scared was he that he simultaneously announced his readiness to lower the absurd 145 percent tariffs he recently imposed on China. In fact, his administration declared, the two countries were already in the process of negotiating the matter, to which Beijing replied, “no, we are not.”
The markets are not the only thing that has brought forth major policy reversals over the past few weeks. On some issues, it seems, even the mildest pushback can bully Trump into capitulating.
After beating Columbia University into submission in March, Trump turned his attention to Harvard, figuring he could get away with imposing even tougher conditions on America’s oldest and most esteemed educational institution. Contrary to his expectations, Harvard basically told him to get fucked.
How did Trump respond to such insolence? Did he escalate his demands? Did he dispatch federal agents onto Harvard Yard? He did nothing of the sort. Instead, he offered to negotiate—and in rather desperate form, too. According to CNN:
The Trump administration appears open to negotiations with Harvard, even after America’s most prestigious university sued the federal government – setting up a clash over academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight.
Last week, administration officials reached out to Harvard representatives three times in an effort to restart talks, a person familiar with the outreach told CNN. The nation’s oldest university indicated it was not interested in negotiating, the person said.
I do not want to overstate the case here; Harvard’s recalcitrance has brought it a world of pain including the impending loss of billions of dollars in federal research funds. On the other hand, unlike Columbia, it retains its institutional dignity and remains a university worthy of the name.
The list of actors that have successfully resisted Trump’s incursions extends well beyond the country’s top universities. Earlier this month, DOGE conceived the brilliant idea of ending the processing of Social Security benefits by phone. This would have required untold numbers of American retirees to visit Social Security Administration offices in person. But following a public outcry from advocacy organizations and Democratic lawmakers, the Trump administration had a revelation that maybe the old way of doing things existed for a reason. It duly backtracked and announced that the changes would not go into effect.
Once his regime reaches a critical juncture—in particular, when he or his successor try to remain in power despite an election loss or when his agents start mowing down protesters in the streets—it might not take as much as people think to force him out.
The courts are likewise beginning to chalk up victories against the president. A few weeks ago, ICE terminated the records of thousands of foreign students in moves that would have brought about their expulsion from the country. Its actions were flagrantly illegal and led to over 40 federal court orders to restore the records. Late last week, the agency relented, pledging to return the students to active status.
Even the Republican majority on the Supreme Court is starting to lose it with Trump’s bullshit. After weeks of defying federal court directives to halt deportations without due process under the Alien Enemies Act, the administration pulled off the remarkable feat of turning four of its biggest Supreme Court enablers against it. When reports emerged of Venezuelan nationals getting bussed to Texas in blatant violation of multiple court rulings, a 7-2 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the administration to bring them back. Amazingly—and contrary to my prediction in a previous post—it complied.
Seeing Through the Mirage
Trump’s assault on democracy has been nothing short of stunning both in its speed and magnitude. Even many leading experts on authoritarianism have been shocked at how far and fast he has gone. Trump has run roughshod over so many laws, agencies, and rights and brought so many prominent actors to heel that the autocratization of the country might seem impossible to reverse.
But the examples above are enough to cast doubt on such fears. In many ways, Trump is the runaway authoritarian train he is depicted to be. The sheer onslaught of his daily attacks on democracy could easily overwhelm his opponents. This is exactly what they are designed to do, and in large part they have succeeded. But this is only true insofar as the targets let it happen by rolling over at the first sign of impending attack.
One of the more puzzling aspects of Trump’s first hundred days is the number of prominent actors and organizations who appear to think that relenting to his outrageous demands will somehow make him leave them alone. Despite the fact that accommodating fascist regimes has never worked for anyone anywhere, a hell of a lot of Americans have convinced themselves that surely this time, in my case, it will.
Hence, Columbia agreed to his conditions. A half-dozen law firms signed agreements with the administration in hopes of fending off further indignities. And, lo and behold, Trump did not back off. Assured of their weakness, he escalated and is now bidding to extract more.
But the minute people start resisting, they often find Trump’s wherewithal to be lacking.
Trump’s tendency to fire off the most demented, unhinged opening salvos only to reverse course at the slightest pushback carries important implications. We should not be fooled by the shock and awe he tries to instill and should instead see him for what he is—your typical schoolyard bully who cowers the moment somebody punches back. In this way, the copious amounts of makeup he applies to conceal the pasty, ashen carcass underneath is a metaphor for how he rules—all appearance and no substance.
Make no mistake; things are going to get very ugly in the coming years. That is the nature of his blitzkrieg approach: Start out with the most insane move imaginable in hopes that the target will lie down and take it before he proceeds to the next victim. This part of Trump’s playbook portends some truly frightful developments—think the mass disappearance of political subversives and the shooting of demonstrators with live ammunition.
But once his regime reaches a critical juncture—in particular, when he or his successor try to remain in power despite an election loss or when his agents start mowing down protesters in the streets—it might not take as much as people think to force him out.
Trump, in other words, is no Bashar al-Assad. He is not the type to go to war against his own people. Nor is he the sort to barricade himself in the Oval Office behind a wall of Depends diapers machine-gunning intruders like some elderly Tony Montana. By the time the American people reach their breaking point and start filling the streets by the millions, Trump may well be on his way to permanent exile in Moscow.