The series introduction outlines Yarvin’s critiques of Trump’s administration through various Substack posts. He expresses unease and awards Trump a C-, categorizing staff into inexperienced “Barbarians” and experienced “Mandarins,” both failing to make effective decisions. Yarvin disapproves of non-citizen detentions and calls Trump’s trade policies “mercantilism,” noting they lack strategic planning. He emphasizes the need to restructure science funding to maintain support from scientists. The discussion raises questions about Yarvin’s expectations of Trump and critiques his naive views on policy implementation and government structure, ultimately expressing frustration with Yarvin’s disconnect from reality.
Begin by reading the introduction to this series. It provides the index for all posts included.
Yarvin has composed multiple Substack posts concerning Trump and his associates since the inauguration. In Barbarians and Mandarins (BM), he responds to the initial six weeks. In Actually You Shouldn’t Van People (Van), he argues that rounding up non-citizens from the street and detaining them is misguided. He critiques Trump’s tariff and trade policies here (M1) and here (M2), labeling them as “mercantilism,” while suggesting they are simply executed incorrectly.
There’s an overarching feeling of discomfort in these writings, indicating that events aren’t unfolding as he anticipated. This appears to be a key point of the WaPo piece.
Grading Trump’s administration
BM consists of around 6K words. My initial task was to remove repetitive sections, jokes, snarky comments about “libs,” and other extraneous material. This left me with approximately 2K words, and I was quite lenient. He begins with a grade of C- for Trump, asserting that the new administration comprises two kinds of people: Barbarians, who lack DC experience, and Mandarins, who possess it.
The Barbarians aim to dismantle, while the Mandarins want to manage affairs, yet neither is equipped to make tough decisions about necessary actions. Without a guiding framework, they devolve into grifters. According to him, Mandarins
… possess no strategy: lacking a plan and an endgame. Since action without strategy is futile and ineffective actions equate to a grift, the Mandarins stand as the most persuasive grifters of all.
He elucidates why this is the case, perhaps in hopes of enlightening them on the Yarvin perspective.
He approves of Trump’s innovative applications of laws and agencies beyond their intended purposes.
Second, one cannot assume that existing infrastructure will function or even be manageable. Typically, the correct initial assumption is that it requires modification—adapted to operate in an unforeseen manner by its designers or past operators. (The transformation of USDS into DOGE will remain a benchmark for many years.)
It’s worth noting that Trump and his team have been employing the tariff law, the Alien Enemy Act, and similar statutes in this fashion. Moreover, courts generally affirm that such actions are lawful under both statutory and constitutional provisions.
He cites the assault on governmental backing for scientific endeavors as a case in point. He argues that for scientists, wielding power often takes precedence, with the pursuit of good science following closely behind. The new administration, encompassing both Bs and Ms, is recklessly navigating without consideration for the new ideology’s objectives.
He contends this contravenes his theory of governance. Reducing funding for scientists breeds resentment and hostility towards what he attributes as the administration’s new ideology. He asserts that dissatisfaction prevalent among scientists regarding the management of research funding must be remedied to engender their support. If they perceive that the new ruler values and safeguards them, they will reciprocate with affection. However, he fails to clarify how this resolves their inherent quest for power.
Van
In BM, dated March 7, he briefly acknowledges the commendable efforts on immigration by the new administration but believes they fall short. He then raises his apprehensions regarding state governance, seemingly rooted in his aversion to federalism. In Van, written April 2, he confronts the harsh realities of ICE maneuvers:
I refer to the recent news regarding unexpected visa cancellations, immigration detentions, etc., concerning a handful of immigrant graduate students, professors, etc.—evidently low human capital individuals—who have previously committed various trivial, if not particularly unusual, offenses—like authoring a pro-Hamas article (likely plagiarized, certainly mundane) for a subpar student newspaper.
He believes these tactics are detrimental. His concerns aren’t founded on any ethical or principled opposition to ICE’s actions; rather, he theorizes that they will ultimately backfire, foster animosity, and erode support for the overall agenda. I ceased reading Van when he proposed that Hitler had a rationale behind the Holocaust—a perspective that is utterly abhorrent and misguided.
Mercantilism
M1 and M2 generally express support for tariffs, but not in their current application. He attributes this to the Bs and Ms. This excerpt from M2 captures his sentiment:
Trump consistently exhibits the appropriate reflexes. However, a reflex does not equate to a strategy. It is not his responsibility, but rather that of his administration, to transform reflexes into coherent plans. While executing with considerable vigor and passion, the administration has experienced a challenging beginning in this translation.
These two posts are exceedingly lengthy, so I didn’t complete them.
Discussion
1. What on earth did Yarvin anticipate would transpire when Trump assumed office? Was he oblivious during the previous Trump presidency? Did he fail to notice Trump’s unquenchable greed, his disregard for policy, and his readiness to align with anyone who sufficiently compliments him? Did he think Trump would suddenly develop an interest in policy when journalists and his own team frequently remarked that Trump was disinterested in reading?
Is Yarvin truly this naive? This gullible? This desperate?
2. Supposedly, Yarvin is a technological prodigy. Has he never observed a large organization upgrade its computer system? You don’t just remove the old framework and install a new one. You don’t discard an old system and introduce a new one overnight. You run both systems concurrently long enough to ensure there are no glitches that could harm your employees and clients. Alternatively, you thoroughly test and assess before gradually replacing small components. There needs to be a strategy, meticulous testing, and careful focus on outcomes.
Now he seems troubled that those who took his advice to dismantle everything are making significant blunders?
3. I recognize our current structural issues. Yarvin delves into some of them, yet never within any pragmatic context or with a feasible suggestion for reform. For a more grounded discussion, refer to this by Jonathan Chait in The Atlantic. The article presents substantial considerations, even for progressives. Among other points, Chait addresses the delays caused by civic activists. He neglects to mention that affluent individuals and corporations deploy similar tactics to stall or reverse regulations designed to prevent environmental degradation and other calamities. Such delay-and-destroy approaches have paralyzed governmental efforts across various fronts.
4. I’m finished with Yarvin. Apparently, he believed the Trump administration had a strategy for reshaping America in a manner conducive to his understanding. His disconnect from reality is intolerable.