It’s really hard to put MAGA into a box, because as President Trump reminded Tucker Carlson, he is MAGA, and consistency of positions is not a hallmark of his style. Nevertheless there are broad themes that reflect the President’s values, which really haven’t changed much over the years. President Trump is not particularly concerned with big government (as long as he’s in charge) but he does want it run efficiently. He’s also open to more cooperation with unions, as exemplified by his pro-union Secretary of Labor. So he’s not really different in a lot of ways than when he was a Democrat in the 1990s. For younger readers, there was a time when the Democratic Party was not insane.*

So it’s not surprising that some of those populist Republicans who follow in his shadow are also pro-big government. Josh Hawley is one of the leading “conservatives” who agrees with the Democrats that we need more Medicaid spending. During the OBBBA debate, Hawley’s position was clear:

And as soon as Sen. Josh Hawley hung up the phone, the Missouri Republican rushed to social media to report on the “great talk” he just had and the promise President Trump made about the One Big Beautiful Bill, the cornerstone of his second term domestic policy agenda: “NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS.” Trump has said as much publicly, but the message still reassured the senator as Republicans on Capitol Hill search for savings to make up for federal revenue lost to tax cuts. Quickly emerging as the most vocal GOP opponent to Medicaid cuts, Hawley has warned his business-friendly colleagues that their mega bill amounts to a referendum: They can be either the party of the working class or the corporate C-suite. The president put it more bluntly. “People who cut Medicaid and Medicare lose elections,” Trump told Hawley according to the senator. “My advice,” he said in an interview with RealClearPolitics, “listen to the guy who won the popular vote.”

While Senator Hawley did not ultimately win that with the OBBBA, he has introduced legislation to give more money to Medicaid, agreeing with the premises of the left. As Hawley has said, “You cannot be a working-class party if you are taking away health care for working-class people.” Now let me concede, there will be pain for those that were given a benefit in 2021 that will be taken away in 2025. Obamacare was always a monstrosity, and it is hopelessly broken and will continue to increase costs, and part of the Affordable Care Act dealt with Medicaid support.** There is a reason no Republicans voted for it. But now there are some that say that Republicans must fund fixes to the failed program the Democrats created. But when Hawley goes down this path, he has agreed to the Democratic terms of the debate. Government helps poor people, so we can’t cut government. What Mr. Hawley fails to consider is the poor people that will be left paying off the $37T in debt we already have. There is no money in the U.S. Treasury to pay for this. I’m in complete agreement with the Republicans that there are lot of people getting this benefit who are freeloading off the system. But even if the position of the Democrats and Senator Hawley was correct (which it most assuredly is not), this only shows that there are hard choices that need to be made. When the Democrats demand funding for illegal aliens healthcare, fine. Where are they going to cut to pay for this? The answer can’t be just add it to the national credit card. When Senator Hawley says we have to throw more good money after bad because some people benefit that will vote for him, fine. But where does he propose getting the money from? Yes, that same maxxed out government credit card. When you agree with the starting premises of the left, you end up with the results of the left: more big government failed programs and more debt.

Have any of these politicians been paying attention to France? They ought to take a look (and you should be paying attention too). Yes it relates to this blogpost. It’s looking increasingly likely to me that the Republicans will cave to the Democrats on this issue. I hope to be proven wrong.

* Believe me, I’m trying not simply to be feeding my flesh when I use the strongly negative term of insane. The fact that we have a major party that insists men can be women if they think they are, and believes we ought to allow children to cut off their healthy body parts when they have mental confusion about their identity, is not normal. When some of their judicial nominees to the Supreme Court cannot say what is a woman, and other judges decide to give attempted murderers reduced sentences because they identify as women, this is not normal. When we have a party that thinks it’s wrong but not disqualifying for one of their major statewide candidates to fantasize about murdering his Republican Party enemy and hoping his children die in their mother’s arms (and when confronted, doubles down), this is not normal. And there are innumerable more examples that I could mention, but you get it. I think the label insane is charitable in these circumstances.

** While Medicaid is distinct from the ACA’s plans, they are related (not just both were in the bill, but also in the tradeoffs for recipients to apply under). Readers can research this on their own, as the specifics aren’t the point of this post.