As I get older, I increasingly feel like this isn’t the country I grew up in. The most dramatic recent changes have been in the area of politics, where the system is becoming almost unrecognizable to those of us who were born in the mid-20th century. Here’s Bloomberg:

The coalition between Clegg and Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta Platforms Inc., proved far more successful, though it, too, is coming to an end, Clegg announced on Thursday. Nevertheless, Clegg’s role has outlived its purpose as Meta contends with a new political landscape, one in which the company must instead turn to its highest-ranking Republican executive, Joel Kaplan, who joined Meta in 2011 and will succeed Clegg as president of global affairs. . . .

The motivations, both personal and business, are obvious. Less than a year has passed since the president-elect threatened to throw Zuckerberg in prison for “the rest of his life.” . . .

It would be unfair to single out Zuckerberg. Several other Silicon Valley contemporaries have flown to Florida to kiss the ring and empty their wallets. It’s not unusual for the giant tech companies to find safety in numbers and march in lockstep. For the second Trump term, the consensus is that it’s better to try to butter up the commander-in-chief, to treat him with reverence rather than opposition.

So what has changed?  In the past, the power of the president was limited.  For instance, Congress set tariff rates.  Over time, however, the power of the presidency has steadily expanded.  So-called “industrial policies” often favor one firm over another.  Regulators increasingly use vague “national security” justifications for a wide range of discretionary decisions.  Elon Musk’s recent move toward the GOP may have been partly motivated by a perception that the Biden administration was biased against his companies.

You might argue that big business has always been somewhat political.  That’s true.  But I cannot recall ever seeing a period with such intense focus on the political affiliation of top corporate executives.  For most of my life, it was assumed that the majority of CEOs were Republicans, regardless of which party controlled the White House.  Increasingly, you see business people changing parties as the political winds shift.

I think it’s a mistake to view all of this in left-right terms, which is the most common framing in the US media.  Our neighbor to the south has been going through a similar transformation, under a regime generally regarded as being on the left. Andrés Manuel López Obrador moved Mexico toward nationalistic economic policies, opposition to clean energy policies, and increased authoritarianism.  He is viewed as being on the left, but what do terms like left and right even mean in today’s world?

Update:  Just hours after posting this, I came across this story:

You’re not alone in raising both eyebrows at Sunday’s news that Amazon will release a Melania Trump documentary directed by Brett Ratner, the Rush Hour filmmaker who has not made a Hollywood movie since 2018, when he was accused of sexual malfeasance by several women. (He’s denied the claims.) Of course, that this vanity documentary will air on a platform whose founder, Jeff Bezos, recently dined at Mar-A-Lago and is actively using his media properties to suck up to Melania’s husband, makes this whole thing even more ridiculous.

I know it’s 2025, nothing matters anymore, and even The Walt Disney Co. is kissing Donald Trump’s ring. But I’ve also learned that Amazon is paying a cool $40 million to license the film, per three sources familiar with the deal. That price includes the Ratner documentary, which will get a small theatrical release and then appear on Prime Video, plus a previously undisclosed two-to-three-episode follow-up docuseries on the first lady. Melania will participate in both projects. (Amazon declined to comment.)

Future generations may wonder why the Teapot Dome scandal was even mentioned in 20th century history books.