"Finally, Trump did something Repubs can't stomach" -- and how it came about.

The title is from the following op-ed column by notable political writer for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank.

*   *   *   *   *

"What would it take for Republicans to turn against Donald Trump?  Now, finally, we know.

"For nearly three years, Republican lawmakers have stood with Trump, offering only isolated protest, through all manner of outrage.   Disparaging Mexican immigrants.   Videotaped boasts about sexually assaulting women.   Alleging that his predecessor put a wiretap on him.   Falsely claiming massive voter fraud.  Racism directed at a federal judge.   The firing of James B. Comey.  Talk of women bleeding.  A payoff to a porn actress over an alleged affair.  A defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville.   Support for Senate candidate Roy Moore despite allegations of child molestation.  The guilty pleas of Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Rick Gates and the indictment of Paul Manafort.  The botched travel ban and bungled repeal of Obamacare.   Insulting Britain and other allies.  Attacks on the FBI and judiciary and attempts to fire the attorney general.  Talk of African 'shithole' countries.  Questions about his mental stability.  The lethargic hurricane response in Puerto Rico.  The stream of staff firings and resignations and personal and ethical scandals, most recently Tuesday's finding that Kellyanne Conway twice violated the Hatch Act.

"Republican lawmakers were, by and large, okay with all that.  But now Trump has gone too far.   He has proposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum.  And the Republican Party is in an all-out revolt.

"House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) fielded four questions at a news conference Tuesday morning and answered the same way four times:  with a warning about the 'unintended consequences' of Trump's proposed tariffs.

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) spoke Tuesday afternoon of 'a high level of concern' and fear that 'this could metastasize into a larger trade war.'  The No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn (Tex.), warned about 'jeopardizing the economy.'

"Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), usually a Trump cheerleader, warned that it would be a 'real mistake.'  Sen. Mark Rubio (Fla.) suggested a 'scapel not a sledgehammer.'  Rep. Kevin Yoder (Kan.), at a hearing Tuesday, warned Treasury Scretary Steven Mnuchin that 'retaliatory measures are already occurring.' . . . 

"Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) went to the Senate floor to warn that 'tariffs are big taxes' and said a company in Tennessee suspended a planned expansion because of the tariff threat.  He read into the record a Wall Street Journal editorial calling the tariffs Trump's 'biggest policy blunder.'

"The Republican criticism ppoured forth, from Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.), from Reps. David Young (Iowa), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), and even from new Fed Chairman Jerome H. Powell.

"And it isn't just criticism.  GOP lawmakers are considering action, even though options are limited:  attempting to block the tariffs with veto-proof legislation or as part of a must-pass bill, or denying Trump fast-track trade negotiating authority when it comes up for renewal.   Republicans have nudged Trump in their direction before, on taxes and immigration.   But never before has there been a full-scale rebellion.

"The conventional analysis is that Republican lawmakers bend to Trump because he has the support of the party's base.   But that calculus does not apply here.  The base is with Trump -- a Pew Research Center poll last year found only 36% of Republicans have a positive view of trade agreements -- but lawmakers are defying him anyway.

"This, then, the extent to which the congressional GOP, despite Trump's populist talk, has been a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America under Trump.  Republicans are with Trump most of the time (that is, when he is cutting regulations and taxes on corporations and the wealthy) but against him on the rare occasions he is opposed by industry, or at least all industry that doesn't make steel and aluminum.

"These lawmakers know where their bread is buttered, and they must keep corporate contributors happy.   Perhaps they also recognize that the economy is in a precarious state.   Trump himself called it a bubble, and that bubble has been pumped up further with debt-financed tax cuts and spending stimulus.  A trade war, or even a trade skirmish, could be most deflating.

"This is why Republican lawmakers look the other way when presented with Trump's alleged sexual misconduct, racial provocations, conflicts of interest, cowboy diplomacy and assaults on the rule of law.   But slapping a tariff on foreign metals?   That crosses the line."

*     *     *     *     *

That, my friends, is an analysis of this from a strictly content perspective.   I know less about the ins and outs of finance and trade than about process of governing, so I tend to look at how this came about.  And it is a frightening spectacle of governing by whim and rage and retaliation.

Reports from this leaky White House are that Trump was enraged -- in fact, one even said that he "came unglued" -- and was mad enough to start a war.   What he apparently settled on was these tariffs, which his Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (who falls asleep in meetings) and his inept deputy had been pushing.    His chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, argued vehemently against it.   But Trump would not listen to him, because he wanted action.

So, without any plan formulated, nothing written down, not even any firm numbers -- Trump held that press conference, at the end of which he blurted out that he was going to impose these trade tariffs.   Only when a reporter asked him, on the way out the door as the press was dismissed, what the numbers were did he mention the 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum.   As Rachel Maddow speculated, it sounded like he just sort of picked them out of the air.

That's how (un)formulated this "plan" was.

And so, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn told the president that he would be resigning.   Cohn, a former President and COO of Goldman Sachs, a registered Democrat, highly respected in the financial world, had taken the White House position to get one thing done:   tax reform.   He had done that.   He tried to talk sense into the president on the tariffs;  but, if his advice carried no weight, then there was no reason for him to stay.

Now we have one less adult in the White House inner circle.   Who knows who his replacement will be?

That's not even my greatest concern.   Rumors have intensified that National Security Adviser Gen. H. R. McMaster is also on the way out (another of the adults).  But the worst news of all is that John Bolton has been seen entering and leaving the White House in recent days, fueling speculation that he will be McMaster's replacement.   Bolton is a notorious, hard-line war hawk.   Exactly what Trump does NOT need.   He's far more blunderbuss than diplomat.

As one commentor put it, "If it's true, we're all dead."

Ralph