Nov
17
2025

Trump Has Mastered the D.C. Shuffle

Christian Schneider tweets:

Just a reminder, the D.C. Shuffle is:

  1. You send the Federal Government a bunch of money. (In this case, tariffs.)
  2. After skimming some off the top, they send some of it back to you.
  3. And claim they've done you a big favor.

Another variation on the Shuffle: belatedly undoing the damage you caused in the first place, to wit: U.S. to Cut Tariffs on Bananas, Coffee and Other Goods From Four Countries. (WSJ gifted link)

The U.S. plans to eliminate tariffs on bananas, coffee, beef and certain apparel and textile products under framework agreements with four Latin American nations, a senior administration official told reporters Thursday.

The expected move—which would apply to some goods from Ecuador, Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala—is part of a shift from the Trump administration to water down some of its so-called reciprocal tariffs in the midst of rising prices for consumers, as well as legal uncertainty after a Supreme Court hearing this month.

I'll utter the obvious cliché: "Better late than never." But even better would have been never having tariffs to "water down" in the first place.

Also of note:

  • I hope I'm not doing this. Nate Hochman tweets:

    It's difficult to know where to draw the line, but I hope to stay on the "not basically unreadable" side of it.

    But Nate's observation is generalizable to topics other than Trump. For example, that article in the Brown Political Review: (Live Libertarian or Die) I linked to yesterday. Which is only readable to the extent that you can wallow in its "manic, overwrought" style: "ultra-libertarians" who "hijacked" a small town meeting, thanks to their "hidden agenda" to "destroy" New Hampshire "from the bottom up". Now the "threat has grown to unprecedented heights", with the libertarians "operating silently" thanks to their "infiltration" into the state legislature…

    It's really a good, by which I mean bad, example of the style Nate is talking about.

    But if you notice me doing that, let me know, OK?

  • Might as well face it, you're addicted to… No, not that. Becket Adams points his finger at another dangerous habit: An Addiction to Euphemism Is Corrupting Journalism — and Our Language. (NR gifted link)

    Do you want to know a secret?

    There are special-interest groups that move from newsroom to newsroom, offering style “tips” to enforce favorable coverage of their pet causes.

    Planned Parenthood is one such group. It regularly provides language guidance to major publications, tasking them not-so-subtly to consider using terms such as “near-total abortion ban” and “anti-choice” instead of “heartbeat bill” and “pro-life.” Other pro-abortion groups, including Ipas, also share journalism “resources” on the supposedly correct way to cover abortion — er, sorry, reproductive health.

    George Orwell, call your office.

    "Abortion" is already a euphemism, of course. Related topic: the euphemism treadmill.

  • Not sung by Roberta Flack. Power Line's Scott Johnson notes a strategy shift by the genocidal Zionist conspirators. Quoting Daniel Greenfield, they're Killing them softly with obesity.

    After two years of barraging social media with lies about a famine in Gaza, Hamas propaganda channels are now trying to cover up their obesity by claiming that Israel is making them fat.

    One recent Hamas media story clamored that “they’re forcing us to gain weight”, and objected that supermarkets have “shelves overflowing with chocolate, soft drinks, and cigarettes”, along with unhealthy “flour and various types of cheese used in sweets and pizza, in addition to sugar and flour derivatives used in confectionery production.”

    “I am compelled to consume carbohydrates, processed cheese, and manufactured meat,” an Arab Muslim settler in Gaza who had previously justified the Hamas massacres complained.

    I thought cigarettes had a slimming effect. But they just kill you a different way.

  • It's time once again to fill in the blank for your instant headline: "Democrats Get        Wrong." Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. submits his entry: Democrats Get the Epstein Wars Wrong. (WSJ gifted link)

    I know nothing beyond what’s in the press, but I somehow doubt Donald Trump was among the needy types who relied on Jeffrey Epstein for access to women they wouldn’t have had access to otherwise. It’s a point we’ll come back to.

    Interesting and perhaps surprising advice has been flowing from the Democratic Party’s loyal handicappers after this month’s gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia. Don’t make impeachment the calling card in next year’s congressional midterms, they say. Consistent overbetting on the unpopularity of Mr. Trump has been the reciprocal of every blown opportunity till now. This includes the 2024 presidential race, which was winnable even amid the Democratic Party’s world-historical malpractices.

    Unfortunately this advice conflicts with activists who insisted Democrats show “fight” with the thankless government shutdown that finally ended this week. Now they want more “fight” over Epstein. Never mind that this represents the sorriest possible way of building on recent electoral successes and Mr. Trump’s shrinking approval ratings.

    Trump, as usual, gets a lot of favors from his enemies. Holman's bottom line:

    What keeps these Democrats from power are the antics of their national party: the Russia folly, the border folly, the trans folly, the Biden incapacity folly. The Epstein distraction bids to be another piece of foolishness that does more to inhibit Democrats’ return to real influence than advance it.