Politics: Weekly Summary (December 01-7, 2025)

I would describe this week in political blogging as messy, loud, and oddly intimate. To me, it feels like sitting in a crowded diner at 2 a.m., overhearing half-arguments and full confessionals. There are big damning accusations, small human moments, and a lot of people trying to make sense of what normal even means anymore. I’d say the posts fall into a few clear piles. Some pieces are about raw power grabs and how they look when they’re naked. Others are about institutions—what’s broken, what’s crumbling, and who’s rearranging the chairs while the ship lists. A few note how money and foreign influence slip through seams we were promised were sealed.

The Trump show: health, fundraising, and a very public brand

It’s hard to overstate how much of the week’s coverage orbits one person. A lot of writers kept circling the same themes: Trump’s health and cognitive sharpness, his unorthodox fundraising language, and what his style of governing means for institutions.

There are posts that read like someone took the campaign’s email list and put it under a microscope. Dean Blundell had a piece that I would describe as equal parts bewilderment and disgust about fundraising pitches that mix theology, odd policy promises, and emotional pressure. The images he points to—emails asking for money to “get to Heaven,” or promising "tariff rebate checks" like a shopping coupon—feel like a carnival barker selling salvation next to a coupon leaflet. To me, it feels like modern politics using the same bait-shop tricks used in late-night infomercials: push the heartstrings, then slide in the ask. Read the piece if you want to see the exact language. It’s bonkers, and suggestive of a wider trend where campaigning turns into performance art, then into commerce.

Those fundraising oddities aren’t just style. Several posts push deeper—toward what this behavior does to norms. Don Moynihan digs into pardons. He argues Trump is remaking pardon power into a currency of loyalty and payment. I’d say that’s not mere rhetoric. When pardons follow cash or connections, the justice system starts to look like a two-tier store: the price tag for some is lighter than for others. That’s not a small critique. It’s the sort of piece that should make people uncomfortable in a practical way, not just an ideological one.

And then there’s the health conversation. Multiple posts—again The Allen Analysis among them, plus a straight medical look from Jeremy Faust, MD—track a pattern of shifting explanations and missing clarity about medical tests and behavior. The MRI stories changed. Statements about why tests were done changed. Cabinet meetings where the President reportedly nodded off happened. The tone across authors ranges from worried to exasperated. To me, it reads like watching someone try to drive a minivan with the parking brake half on. You sense the machinery—power, policy, national security—straining against human limits.

Another curious bit: the nonstop posting on Truth Social. Mike "Mish" Shedlock counted a flurry of posts and noted the mixture of self-praise, wild conspiracies, and past-their-sell-by critiques. That late-night blitz is more than personality; it is branding and crowd-shaping. It’s like leaving the radio on in a café overnight. The patrons leave with the music stuck in their heads. Same, but political.

If you want the dramatic arc: there are posts about legal fights over tariffs and power that look like money and influence being shuffled through new methods. Dean Blundell writes about the complex games around tariffs and refunds, and how players are poised to profit if court decisions land one way. It reads like a casino table outside the courthouse.

Military, law, and the smell of constitutional strain

A very different drumbeat ran about military decision-making and civil-military norms. Several writers were alarmed.

There’s a sequence of pieces about controversial strikes and a missing or silent military leadership. The Allen Analysis and Zev Shalev both track the fallout from strike decisions that some senior officers said lacked lawful basis. One line keeps popping up: officials being sidelined for sticking to legalities. That’s not often framed as small personnel shuffle. It’s framed as a potential erosion of the guardrails that keep the military from turning into a political tool. I would describe their tone as urgent, like someone waving their hands because the fire alarm is stuck and no one’s hearing it.

This ties into the impeachment push against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. The Allen Analysis and others trace how Hegseth’s use of encrypted apps to direct military operations, and the sidelining of lawyers who objected, turned into an impeachment effort. It’s a classic soap-opera and court-hall drama mixed together. One minute you’re reading about rules, the next you’re reading about resignations and public accusations. To me, it feels like watching a neighborhood watch get politicized, where the people supposed to keep order are the ones arguing about the rulebook.

There’s a personal note too. Adm. Doug Holsey’s departure—covered with a mix of legal detail and hallway gossip—reads less like a personnel matter and more like institutional rot being revealed. It’s like finding a leaky pipe behind a plaster wall; once you see it, you can’t unsee the water stain.

Federal agencies, politicization, and the tug-of-war over competence

Another recurring theme is institutional competence—or the lack of it.

The FBI under Kash Patel receives a bleak portrait in a leaked report covered by The Allen Analysis. Agents describe a rudderless ship. The report paints a picture of demoralization and leadership focused on branding rather than law enforcement. If you’ve ever worked a job where the boss cares more about selfies than spreadsheets, you’ll recognize the tone here. The worry is not just about feelings; it’s about investigative capacity and national safety.

That thread—politicized institutions—runs elsewhere. The Health and Human Services Department comes under the microscope in posts about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and an apparent shift toward promoting the boss’s personal brand over traditional public-health campaigns. Naked Capitalism emphasized the danger: when public health messaging looks like campaign branding, trust frays. To me, it feels like going to the doctor and finding the waiting room full of posters selling the doctor’s book. You leave wondering: who’s being served?

Science funding and research also get the axe. Another Naked Capitalism piece laments the erosion of the social contract between scientists and government. It’s a dreary watch: grant success rates dip, politics leak into peer review, and the steady machinery of research starts to stutter. If you care about long-term problem solving—vaccines, climate, infrastructure—this slow slip is quietly terrifying.

Corruption, foreign influence, and the money maps under our cities

There were several long reads about money, foreign influence, and legal cases that seem to be reshaping how power gets bought and sold.

Sam Cooper’s reporting on the Linda Sun trial and on alleged United Front proxies is granular and sharp. Sam Cooper lays out a case where state-level politics intersects with foreign money. It reads like a cautionary tale: democratic hubs being tested by the quiet push of outside influence. To me, it feels like discovering termites after you pulled up a floorboard. The trial’s details—ledgers, fake invoices, promises to secure re-election support—are the sort of thing that make you want to keep the lights on and the doors locked.

The Canadian angle showed up too. Sam Cooper and others reported on China’s “pop-up” consular events across Canadian towns. The allegation is one of incremental influence-building: over 100 events in 22 cities since 2015. It’s a very modern playbook. To borrow a neighborhood image: it’s like someone slowly planting shrubs across your street until the entire block smells different.

Related to domestic corruption was the reporting on pipeline MOUs in Canada. Dougald Lamont wrote two pieces criticizing the deal’s framing and its history. The gist is familiar: political theater that casts certain regions as victims while the real drivers are global markets and uneven wealth. There’s a populist note here—the sort of anger that’s easy to stoke because it smells like real grievance.

Finally, the U.S. saw legal fights over tariffs and IEEPA use, with Dean Blundell flagging potential windfalls for a small circle of players should courts rule a certain way. It makes one think of a poker table with a stacked deck.

Immigration, housing, and the quiet policy failures that front as culture wars

Not everything this week was about bombast and impeachment. Some posts argued for a return to practical politics.

Ryan Puzycki and others wrote about housing and migration. There’s a repeated picture: people seek better lives, and both left and right fail to provide sensible, humane policy. The British example, with Professor Alan Manning quoted on migrants choosing the risky route to Europe, points to a global pattern: people will take terrible risks if the alternatives are worse. These arguments are wrapped in policy talk—zoning laws, McMansions, migration flows to the Sunbelt—but at root they’re human stories about shelter and dignity.

On a different register, there’s the story about the politics of crime and perception in the UK from Nick Cohen. He pushes back against fear-based framing and tabloidy panic. The piece reads like a plea: don’t let loudmouths set the truth—for votes or clicks. It’s the kind of argument that feels a bit like telling someone the stove isn’t hot while smoke still curls from the pans.

There was also a thoughtful riff on full secession from Chris Armitage. The piece asks: what would it look like if Blue and Red America split? It doesn’t blow a trumpet for the idea. Instead, it uses the thought experiment to show how policy choices—health, environment, social safety—really matter in a concrete way. The scenario frames the stakes, even if the idea itself is far-fetched to most readers.

Media, language, and how words get bent

Several posts returned to journalism itself—both as subject and as tool.

Dean Blundell used the Ryan Lizza/Olivia Nuzzi story to sketch a bigger picture about media circles and access. He wasn’t the only one to grumble about insider culture. Others wondered whether journalism now kneels more to relationships and access than to truth. The words we use and who controls them came up in a more philosophical piece by Quoth the Raven. He wrote about "using words honestly" and how flexible definitions can obscure the very things we need to debate openly. There’s no neat forensic conclusion, but there is a clear unease: when language gets stretched, politicians and demagogues win a little bit more room to dodge accountability.

Even pop culture made an appearance. A Canadian satire show got credited for being unexpectedly influential. Dean Blundell wrote about how a sketch show mocked Trump and drove him nuts. It’s a reminder that humor and ridicule still matter. They’re cheap, quick, and sometimes more effective than a thousand op-eds.

Europe, China, and the big geopolitical re-think

Outside the U.S., there were a few pieces that pulled back and looked at systemic differences.

There’s a book review of Dan Wang’s Breakneck China by Minh Quang Duong. The thesis: China engineers quickly and at scale, often neglecting human costs; the U.S. built a different set of constraints that preserves some freedoms but also stymies practical projects. The reviewer doesn’t settle the debate, but it’s a useful frame. If you like thinking in terms of systems rather than tweets, that review is worth a read.

The EU got a close reading from Pieter Garicano on how Brussels manages to crank out laws despite seeming gridlocked. The answer is partly incentives and partly a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiation. It’s an odd mix of clumsy machinery and effectiveness; the result is lots of rules, some useful, some overlapping. If you ever wanted to know why the EU looks like an octopus with too many arms, this explains it.

And Eurovision’s drama—where several countries threatened to quit over Israel’s entry—showed how cultural institutions can become lightning rods for geopolitics. Mike "Mish" Shedlock covered the fallout. It’s a reminder that culture and policy are never separate in practice.

Tech, AI, and the new weeds in old gardens

Tech shows up in a few corners. The David Sacks piece from Robert Wright is a portrait of conflicts of interest when private money and public office overlap. It’s not surprising to see such stories these days. What stood out was the quiet conclusion: power follows money, and rules are only as strong as those willing to enforce them.

There was also an eyebrow-raising snippet about AI chatbots influencing voters more effectively than ads. That was tucked into an otherwise light post from Doc Searls Weblog. If true, it should concern anyone who thinks elections are decided by TV spots. It’s like learning your neighborhood’s cranky uncle suddenly has a toolkit to write convincing letters in other people’s handwriting.

Small stuff that still matters: sports, retail fights, and cultural notes

Not every piece was high politics. There were human-scale stories that still reflect power.

An account of LSU’s hiring of Lane Kiffin showed how money and politics swirl around college sports. Joe Pompliano traced private jets and nine-figure negotiations. College football is a small mirror of larger incentives: rich agents, public pride, and political soundbites.

Costco’s spat with MAGA activists made an odd splash. The take here—pushed by The Allen Analysis—is that corporate customers vote with wallets, not war cries. Costco refused to bow to political pressure and saw membership rise. That’s small but telling: sometimes businesses choose the path of least political resistance because it’s better for the bottom line.

There were also softer pieces: a look at William F. Buckley’s legacy, a meditative note about not letting the “old man in,” and a few pod-style essays that mix personal reflection with policy notes. They break up the news with a little breathing room, like a porch talk after a long meeting.

Agreements, disagreements, and what keeps repeating

Read across these posts and a few patterns repeat. People keep circling three big anxieties:

• Power without transparency. Whether it’s pardons, tariffs, or military strikes, authors keep asking: who’s accountable? The answers are fuzzy.
• Institutions under strain. From the FBI to HHS to the Pentagon, a common worry is that institutions are being reshaped to serve short-term political goals instead of public duty.
• Money and foreign influence. There’s a thread of corruption or influence—sometimes direct, sometimes covert—that runs through trials and policy fights.

Authors disagree on tone and remedy. Some want immediate legal action. Others want systemic policy fixes. Some pieces are more outraged than diagnostic. That’s healthy in a way. It’s like a town meeting where half the people bring charts and the other half bring pitchforks. You need both, even if it’s messy.

Where to poke next

If you want a starting list: read the investigative legal pieces for detail on trials and influence. Read the pieces on pardons and tariffs if you care about how power gets monetized. Read the Pentagon stuff if you worry about the rule of law and the chain of command. And read the lighter bits—the satire, the sports money story—because they reveal how political energy leaks into everyday life.

I would describe the week as the kind of patchwork that makes for a long winter of reading. To me, it feels like the country—maybe the wider Anglophone democratic space—is in a slow, noisy transition. Some of what’s happening is normal churn. Some feels like a new operating system being quietly installed while we all look away. If you enjoy poking at the seams, these posts give you the tools and the clips of evidence.

If you want more detail, follow the links to the authors. They’re not all singing from the same hymn sheet, and that’s useful. Arguments sharpen when they collide. There are legal papers to read, court dockets to follow, and small local stories that will matter in the long run.

And one last thing—this week felt a bit like traffic on a rainy evening. Lots of headlights. Slow movement. A few stalled cars on the shoulder. People honking. If you’re a commuter, you know how irritating that is. But you also know that eventually the road clears, or you find a detour. Keep reading. These pieces point to detours worth exploring.