Josh Marshall does some socio-political art criticism of Jon McNaughton, producer of godawful agitprop art. He notes that McNaughton taps directly into the alternative universe of white, conservative grievance and produces shitty painting of that universe.
The important note is at the end: These paintings sell. And now that he is painting Trump, even more so. As Marshall notes, the paintings of Trump are so far from any even moderately accurate portrayal of Trump as to be laughable. McNaughton's beliefs are clearly Christianist. Dude's from Utah, y'all. He is not so interested in the idea of separating church and state.
So, he took a flamboyantly immoral con artist who has never been seen being genuinely affectionate with another human being, and turns him into a quiet teacher of young people. What the everliving hell?
I was reading some reactions to the Joy Reid controversy, and some neuroscientists were saying that it is quite probable that she remembers her own past falsely. Our brains don't accumulate facts, they tells us a story about ourselves that we can live with. (Depression is when that story get unnecessarily dark.) The key is that we create a narrative about ourselves that we are comfortable with.
These paintings are emblematic of how evangelicals are telling a story about themselves that is fundamentally false. For everyone who wonders why evangelicals can support a thrice married man who routintely cheats on his wife with porn stars and then pays them hush money out of an illegal slush fund...here's your answer. They have concocted a parallel narrative of Trump that is far out of line with everyone else' reality, buttressed by nonsense like the McNaughton kitch.
Hell of a world view you got there.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Good Guy Without A Gun
James Shaw, Jr. - The Waffle House Hero - is a true hero. We would like to think that in a moment of crisis, we would rise to the occasion and do something as heroic as he did. The fact is that few of us would. Shaw himself has done what heroes usually do: deny that he is a hero.
And I might believe him, if he didn't then turn around and raise almost $200,000 for the victims of the shooting.
I haven't seen Infinity Wars yet, but I hope the Waffle House Hero is in it.
And I might believe him, if he didn't then turn around and raise almost $200,000 for the victims of the shooting.
I haven't seen Infinity Wars yet, but I hope the Waffle House Hero is in it.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Nerd Prom
I have been off Twitter the past three days, because I do a bunch of "stuff" around the NFL draft. I checked in this morning and everyone was waging verbal war off of Michelle Wolf's...what should we call it... verbal ambush of the White House Correspondent's Dinner.
So I found a transcript and read it. It's a little "blue" in terms of language, but what it really is is scorching hot anger. Maybe she was smiling and had warmth in her voice (I read it, didn't watch it), but the substance is pure distilled rage. The rage of women, the rage of African Americans, all delivered to a room full of mostly white rich people. This made some of them uncomfortable, and a few walked out.
The thing is, it is possible for great wealth to insulate you from real consequences. It insulated Bill Cosby for decades, it insulated Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Harvey Wienstein. Women are calling them to account, but there are still many ways in which wealth and power can insulate you from things you don't want to encounter.
Here's the thing: you shouldn't live that way. You should have to confront your failings from time to time. You should know that the world doesn't end at the tip if your nose.
Enjoy your pearl clutching people, while you still have your pearls.
So I found a transcript and read it. It's a little "blue" in terms of language, but what it really is is scorching hot anger. Maybe she was smiling and had warmth in her voice (I read it, didn't watch it), but the substance is pure distilled rage. The rage of women, the rage of African Americans, all delivered to a room full of mostly white rich people. This made some of them uncomfortable, and a few walked out.
The thing is, it is possible for great wealth to insulate you from real consequences. It insulated Bill Cosby for decades, it insulated Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Harvey Wienstein. Women are calling them to account, but there are still many ways in which wealth and power can insulate you from things you don't want to encounter.
Here's the thing: you shouldn't live that way. You should have to confront your failings from time to time. You should know that the world doesn't end at the tip if your nose.
Enjoy your pearl clutching people, while you still have your pearls.
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Anxious Times
It's been interesting watching the left's reaction to the recent scholarship that places "status anxiety" at the root of Trump's election, as opposed to "economic anxiety." For a certain segment of the Left, this doesn't explicitly say "RACISM" in big, flashing neon letters, so it's another cop out by corporate media. Of course, it's describing a social science paper, and "status anxiety" is a social science term. Racism is at risk of being a verbal weapon thrown around so much that its blade gets dull. Of course racism is at the root of status anxiety, and the article places it front and center. Sexism, too, though that isn't getting the same treatment.
What is missing is that there is definitely a link between status anxiety and economic anxiety. It's not that Trump voters were especially poor; they weren't. They could, however, see evidence of economic decline all around them, especially the decline in well paying jobs for high school graduates. Dad may have had a good job, but Junior can't find work beyond minimum wage service McJobs.
One thing that some social scientists have suggested is that prosperity correlates with social liberalism. When you feel economic secure, you are more generous, both economically and socially. the broad prosperity of the '50s and '60s was an important reason why the civil rights movement both took place and succeeded. When you feel threatened, you retreat to the jingoistic and particularlist rhetoric and structures of conservatism. You especially feel threatened by "out groups" who reinforce your sense of insecurity and threat.
Prosperous people are very often more socially liberal on issues of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Some strategists have argued that this analysis of Trump voters means that Democrats should abandon efforts to reach Trump voters, because racism and sexism are anathema to the party. While the latter is true, and should be, Democrats should absolutely be out to poach Trump voters, especially those independent minded WWC voters and suburban social moderates. You will never win the Deplorables, and you really shouldn't even try.
However, you are going to have to peel off some of those angry, disaffected voters of the sort that Conor Lamb won in the special election. You only need to strip away about 10% of the GOP electorate, and you can do it without abandoning your base.
The argument that the GOP is the "party of corruption" is particularly strong in the Age of Trump (and Pruitt and Ryan and Farenholdt and Kushner). The idea that the GOP is the "party of Wall Street" was made for you by their tax cut bill and by the attacks on Obamacare. Those attacks are as true for a disgruntled, white former steel worker as they are for an underemployed African American trying to string together three part time jobs.
The bullshit "either/or" arguments that are in large part a proxy re-litigation of the 2016 presidential race is just lazy thinking.
What is missing is that there is definitely a link between status anxiety and economic anxiety. It's not that Trump voters were especially poor; they weren't. They could, however, see evidence of economic decline all around them, especially the decline in well paying jobs for high school graduates. Dad may have had a good job, but Junior can't find work beyond minimum wage service McJobs.
One thing that some social scientists have suggested is that prosperity correlates with social liberalism. When you feel economic secure, you are more generous, both economically and socially. the broad prosperity of the '50s and '60s was an important reason why the civil rights movement both took place and succeeded. When you feel threatened, you retreat to the jingoistic and particularlist rhetoric and structures of conservatism. You especially feel threatened by "out groups" who reinforce your sense of insecurity and threat.
Prosperous people are very often more socially liberal on issues of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Some strategists have argued that this analysis of Trump voters means that Democrats should abandon efforts to reach Trump voters, because racism and sexism are anathema to the party. While the latter is true, and should be, Democrats should absolutely be out to poach Trump voters, especially those independent minded WWC voters and suburban social moderates. You will never win the Deplorables, and you really shouldn't even try.
However, you are going to have to peel off some of those angry, disaffected voters of the sort that Conor Lamb won in the special election. You only need to strip away about 10% of the GOP electorate, and you can do it without abandoning your base.
The argument that the GOP is the "party of corruption" is particularly strong in the Age of Trump (and Pruitt and Ryan and Farenholdt and Kushner). The idea that the GOP is the "party of Wall Street" was made for you by their tax cut bill and by the attacks on Obamacare. Those attacks are as true for a disgruntled, white former steel worker as they are for an underemployed African American trying to string together three part time jobs.
The bullshit "either/or" arguments that are in large part a proxy re-litigation of the 2016 presidential race is just lazy thinking.
Friday, April 27, 2018
The Best People
GOP Representative resigns amid scandal.
Paul Ryan fires House chaplain for pointing out that the Gospels are not about cutting taxes on the very rich.
Paul Ryan fires House chaplain for pointing out that the Gospels are not about cutting taxes on the very rich.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Dignity Wraith
Josh Marshall coined the term "Dignity Wraith" to describe those who get sucked into Trumpistan and then have their dignity drained away. Here is Exhibit A:
But the list goes on and on of people who had decent reputations, then came into contact with Trump. Sean Spicer, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, John Kelly.
What's happened with Adm. Jackson is perhaps a new wrinkle on the phenomenon. Jackson's misdeeds preceed his affliation with Trump. Yet, somehow, Trump managed to find another morally compromised person to try and serve in his government.
It's almost like it's not that Trump sucks the dignity from them, it's that they never had but a fig leaf of dignity anyway, and Trump is merely the strong wind that blows it away.
Obligatory NSFW Onion reference.
But the list goes on and on of people who had decent reputations, then came into contact with Trump. Sean Spicer, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, John Kelly.
What's happened with Adm. Jackson is perhaps a new wrinkle on the phenomenon. Jackson's misdeeds preceed his affliation with Trump. Yet, somehow, Trump managed to find another morally compromised person to try and serve in his government.
It's almost like it's not that Trump sucks the dignity from them, it's that they never had but a fig leaf of dignity anyway, and Trump is merely the strong wind that blows it away.
Obligatory NSFW Onion reference.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Does Anything Matter Anymore?
White House economic do-it-all, Mick Mulvaney, just admitted that he ran a pay-for-play system while a Congressman. Meanwhile, he's stripping the CFPB of its powers and ability to protect people from predatory financial institutions. Once again, in any other administration, this would be a breathtaking scandal. As it is, it can barely register, with a 24 hour news cycle of Trump being an idiot and national embarrassment by picking dandruff of Emmanuel Macron.
Someone, hopefully, at the DNC is creating a database of the rampant corruption. However, it will need to be the Democrats' job to make corruption the leading issue in 2018. There is a bullshit narrative that they can't just "run against Trump." While there is a kernel of truth there, they can certainly run against a "culture of corruption" similar to what Republicans did in 1994.
You can't focus just on Trump. You have to cast your gaze on the broader corruption in Congress, in the administration without taking your eyes off the West Wing.
Someone, hopefully, at the DNC is creating a database of the rampant corruption. However, it will need to be the Democrats' job to make corruption the leading issue in 2018. There is a bullshit narrative that they can't just "run against Trump." While there is a kernel of truth there, they can certainly run against a "culture of corruption" similar to what Republicans did in 1994.
You can't focus just on Trump. You have to cast your gaze on the broader corruption in Congress, in the administration without taking your eyes off the West Wing.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Never Trumpers
David Roberts lays out a fairly convincing case that Never Trump Republicans should join with Democrats until the Republican Party abandons it's descent into lawlessness and authoritarianism. Roberts rightly notes that we have a two-party system that isn't going anywhere. You effectively have a binary choice, and if you truly believe Trump is an existential threat to the Republic and the rule of law, you should vote with Democrats to rein him in.
The biggest question about Never Trump Republicans is just how many of them really exist. I've been teaching the creation of the Reagan Coalition the past two days. Basically, the Paleocons provided the money and small government rhetoric, the Neocons provided the foreign policy and ideas, the Theocons provided the votes. Today, 83% of Evangelical Whites support Trump. That's higher than Republicans as a whole (80%), but we have to consider that "Republicans" has come to mean "Evangelical Whites."
Roberts dismisses a third party, as does the conservative writer he cites. I would argue that if you could get 20% of Republicans to split with the party, that would have basically the same effect as voting Democrat. Not always, not in every race, but it would create a home for people who would otherwise hold their nose and vote Republican. They aren't going to vote for Democrats in most circumstances. But if they voted for the National Republican Party or the Reform Republican Party, then those are votes that are effectively being denied the Ethnonationalist Republican Party.
The current balance between the two parties is very, very close. Even with all the talk of gerrymandering, it seems as if Democrats have a pretty good shot at taking back both Houses of Congress. If you also stripped away 10-20% of Republican voters into a third party, that would have the effect of electing Democrats, even in marginal districts. It would allow Never Trump Republicans to hold on to their ideals and create an eventual successor to the Party of Trump.
America needs a responsible conservative party. It does not currently have one. It needs the Conservative Party of Britain, but all it has is the National Front of France. A third party would be necessary to wrest control of Congress from America's National Front, and create a haven for those wishing to remain conservative but not willing to vote for Democrats.
The biggest question about Never Trump Republicans is just how many of them really exist. I've been teaching the creation of the Reagan Coalition the past two days. Basically, the Paleocons provided the money and small government rhetoric, the Neocons provided the foreign policy and ideas, the Theocons provided the votes. Today, 83% of Evangelical Whites support Trump. That's higher than Republicans as a whole (80%), but we have to consider that "Republicans" has come to mean "Evangelical Whites."
Roberts dismisses a third party, as does the conservative writer he cites. I would argue that if you could get 20% of Republicans to split with the party, that would have basically the same effect as voting Democrat. Not always, not in every race, but it would create a home for people who would otherwise hold their nose and vote Republican. They aren't going to vote for Democrats in most circumstances. But if they voted for the National Republican Party or the Reform Republican Party, then those are votes that are effectively being denied the Ethnonationalist Republican Party.
The current balance between the two parties is very, very close. Even with all the talk of gerrymandering, it seems as if Democrats have a pretty good shot at taking back both Houses of Congress. If you also stripped away 10-20% of Republican voters into a third party, that would have the effect of electing Democrats, even in marginal districts. It would allow Never Trump Republicans to hold on to their ideals and create an eventual successor to the Party of Trump.
America needs a responsible conservative party. It does not currently have one. It needs the Conservative Party of Britain, but all it has is the National Front of France. A third party would be necessary to wrest control of Congress from America's National Front, and create a haven for those wishing to remain conservative but not willing to vote for Democrats.
Hive Of Villainy
The Saudi Royal Family is what the Trump Crime Family wishes it could be: ruthless, efficent and rich as hell. Apparently, Trump's Master of Whispers at the National Enquirer has published a fluff magazine about the Crown Prince. I remember seeing it in the drugstore in the small Georgia town my mom lives in. It was a true curiosity, as I couldn't imagine more than a dozen people in Elberton knowing who Mohammad bin Salman is. Yet it was clearly targeted at rural Trump voters.
Bizarre.
Bizarre.
Monday, April 23, 2018
Chait Trolling
Every once in a while Jon Chait trolls the Left. As a Liberal and not a Leftist, he is part of a long tradition of doing so.
Today, he makes a very interesting take on the route that women have to navigate in order to become president. He focuses on two of the frontrunners for 2020, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand. With Harris, he notes how she tore Jeff Sessions a new one during his confirmation hearing, yet the left-leaning coverage focused on her being interrupted, rather than her ass-kicking. With Gillibrand, it is a case of her leading the way on sexual harrassment, yet focusing on her own history.
Chait's trolling comes when he says this:
Presenting a female politician as a victim may attract support and positive attention among progressive activists. On the left, victimhood is a prime source of authority, and discourse revolves around establishing one’s intersectional credentials and detailing stories of mistreatment that reinforce them. Within the ecosystem of the left, demonstrating that you have suffered harassment or microaggressions is a big win.
As soon as I read that, I knew what would follow, and sure enough the Leftier parts of the internet are ripping into him. And yet, he's not wrong. And he's focused on how to elect our first female president, who will likely be a Democrat.
As he says, it's not really about convincing your base. It's about winning the election that is largely decided for stupid reasons surrounding imagery. Women have a trickier needle to thread in trying to present as a Commander and Chief, while not coming off as grating. It's sexist, but it exists.
I'm not sure why this engenders such outrage.
Today, he makes a very interesting take on the route that women have to navigate in order to become president. He focuses on two of the frontrunners for 2020, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand. With Harris, he notes how she tore Jeff Sessions a new one during his confirmation hearing, yet the left-leaning coverage focused on her being interrupted, rather than her ass-kicking. With Gillibrand, it is a case of her leading the way on sexual harrassment, yet focusing on her own history.
Chait's trolling comes when he says this:
Presenting a female politician as a victim may attract support and positive attention among progressive activists. On the left, victimhood is a prime source of authority, and discourse revolves around establishing one’s intersectional credentials and detailing stories of mistreatment that reinforce them. Within the ecosystem of the left, demonstrating that you have suffered harassment or microaggressions is a big win.
As soon as I read that, I knew what would follow, and sure enough the Leftier parts of the internet are ripping into him. And yet, he's not wrong. And he's focused on how to elect our first female president, who will likely be a Democrat.
As he says, it's not really about convincing your base. It's about winning the election that is largely decided for stupid reasons surrounding imagery. Women have a trickier needle to thread in trying to present as a Commander and Chief, while not coming off as grating. It's sexist, but it exists.
I'm not sure why this engenders such outrage.
Memorializing History
Fred Hiatt, of all people, has a nice introduction to a new outdoor museum and memorial to the long term effects of white supremacy. The memorial is in Montgomery.
What the piece captures succintly is the idea that slavery - or more accurately the expendability of black bodies - didn't end in 1865. Chattel slavery may have lasted from 1630-1865, but it was replaced with another power system that replicated slavery until the 1960s. After Jim Crow was dismantled, yet another form of racism was created to make sure black labor and black lives did not threaten white labor and white lives.
After Selma, Martin Luther King went to Chicago, where he worked against the de facto segregation of the North. The first African Americans to flee the Jim Crow South were met with violence in St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago. King - who had been lionized by northern moderates when he confronted the brutality of Jim Crow - was suddenly unwelcome in sensible white circles. His criticisms were too unnerving, too threatening.
That legacy remains unaddressed for many Americans. Slavery or Jim Crow was easy to condemn, but the continuing legacy and the institutions that were created from them remain in place. We will grapple with them and learn to understand them.
Or they will destroy us.
What the piece captures succintly is the idea that slavery - or more accurately the expendability of black bodies - didn't end in 1865. Chattel slavery may have lasted from 1630-1865, but it was replaced with another power system that replicated slavery until the 1960s. After Jim Crow was dismantled, yet another form of racism was created to make sure black labor and black lives did not threaten white labor and white lives.
After Selma, Martin Luther King went to Chicago, where he worked against the de facto segregation of the North. The first African Americans to flee the Jim Crow South were met with violence in St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago. King - who had been lionized by northern moderates when he confronted the brutality of Jim Crow - was suddenly unwelcome in sensible white circles. His criticisms were too unnerving, too threatening.
That legacy remains unaddressed for many Americans. Slavery or Jim Crow was easy to condemn, but the continuing legacy and the institutions that were created from them remain in place. We will grapple with them and learn to understand them.
Or they will destroy us.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Cool, Nothing To See Here, America
Some embittered, overly armed white dude shot up a Waffle House. Another angry dude wearing a MAGA hat pushed a Hispanic guy in front of a train.
The Waffle House shooter was disarmed by an African American, and the subway guy was also African American. I'm going to take a wild guess who Fox News is going to focus on. It will be difficult, given that the subway pusher was wearing a MAGA hat, so it will be a "false flag operation" designed to make Glorious Orange Leader look bad. Meanwhile, the young man who wrestled the gun away from the Waffle House shooter will likely disappear to everyone except those whose lives he saved.
Good thing it was a Waffle House and not a Philly Starbucks.
The Waffle House shooter was disarmed by an African American, and the subway guy was also African American. I'm going to take a wild guess who Fox News is going to focus on. It will be difficult, given that the subway pusher was wearing a MAGA hat, so it will be a "false flag operation" designed to make Glorious Orange Leader look bad. Meanwhile, the young man who wrestled the gun away from the Waffle House shooter will likely disappear to everyone except those whose lives he saved.
Good thing it was a Waffle House and not a Philly Starbucks.
Happy Earth Day
Planted a second Dwarf Burning Bush to shield the Andromeda I planted. Did the window boxes. Did NOT get out to pick up trash, due to time issues, but I saw someone else doing it, so I feel like a trend setter.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Scandalous
Puerto Ricans are American citizens. The fact that tens of thousands are without power, combined with the overall fiscal and financial abuse that they have endured from Republicans in Washington is a scandal. This is both separate from the daily barrage of scandals than have typified Trumpistan and a piece of it.
Puerto Rico's woes are a confluence of the three main themes of Trump's maladministration.
- Corruption
- Incompetency and indifference
- Racism
Efforts to restore power in Puerto Rico have been hampered by corrupt contracts and poor delivery of services because of that. Republicans as a party don't give a damn if government functions poorly. In fact, poor government services actually buttress their ideological predisposition to see government actions as inherently illegitimate. And of course, this wouldn't be happening if Puerto Rico was full of blond haired white people.
My only hope is that enough Puerto Ricans move to Florida and Texas to tip the elections in 2018 against Republicans. That would be the justice that the Party of Trump deserves.
Puerto Rico's woes are a confluence of the three main themes of Trump's maladministration.
- Corruption
- Incompetency and indifference
- Racism
Efforts to restore power in Puerto Rico have been hampered by corrupt contracts and poor delivery of services because of that. Republicans as a party don't give a damn if government functions poorly. In fact, poor government services actually buttress their ideological predisposition to see government actions as inherently illegitimate. And of course, this wouldn't be happening if Puerto Rico was full of blond haired white people.
My only hope is that enough Puerto Ricans move to Florida and Texas to tip the elections in 2018 against Republicans. That would be the justice that the Party of Trump deserves.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Damning
Part of Donald Trump's appeal to the Trumpenproletariat was the idea that he was SO RICH that he wouldn't be tempted by proximity to power and only HE, Donald Trump, could "drain the swamp." His wealth attached to him skills and attributes that a certain class of people always felt should be in the presidency.
This report in the WaPo should surprise no one at this point. It won't surprise people in the reality based community who have observed this fraud, nor will it surprise the MAGAts, because they won't believe it.
Basically, it's about how Trump lied to get on the Forbes 400. He created alter egos who called as "John Barron" to inflate Trump's wealth. Roy Cohn would threaten as well. Greenberg does a convinving case of laying out Trump's mendacity.
He only alludes, however, to the implications of Trump's disinformation campaign against Forbes.
First, and most obviously: Trump is an inveterate liar. He lies the way other people breathe. Of course, we know that if we are paying attention and not a compromised fool.
Secondly, we get a sense of Trump's shrewdness. As Greenberg notes, Trump used his status on the Forbes list as a form of collateral for loans he couldn't otherwise qualify for. Trump was leveraged as hell for most of the '80s and '90s (and presumably this century). His actual net worth was much lower than people believed, but because they believed it, they loaned him money. Trump's great insight has always been to leverage America's veneration of wealth and celebrity into more wealth and celebrity. Substance has never been "on brand" for Trump. It has always been about appearance.
Finally, and today maybe most importantly, it goes to show why Trump would have gotten into bed with Russian oligarchs and siloviki. He never had the cash he said he had. He never had the properties he said he had. Fred Trump was the builder; Fred Trump created actual, tangible value. Donald Trump became a brand that you could license (often for pennies on the dollar). We got Trump Steaks and Trump Wine for this reason. He would license his name just to keep the spending money rolling in. And when Russians with money that needed laundering came calling, Donald Trump was open for business.
Trump's disdain for the common practices that presidents assume - blind trusts, divesting from conflicts of interest - is because his "empire" is much closer to the emperor's new clothes. It's a fiction he's foisted on the world and more than anything, he can't allow that fiction to be pierced.
Trump is almost certainly guilty of a ton of stuff. But he's most worried about being proven less than super rich.
This report in the WaPo should surprise no one at this point. It won't surprise people in the reality based community who have observed this fraud, nor will it surprise the MAGAts, because they won't believe it.
Basically, it's about how Trump lied to get on the Forbes 400. He created alter egos who called as "John Barron" to inflate Trump's wealth. Roy Cohn would threaten as well. Greenberg does a convinving case of laying out Trump's mendacity.
He only alludes, however, to the implications of Trump's disinformation campaign against Forbes.
First, and most obviously: Trump is an inveterate liar. He lies the way other people breathe. Of course, we know that if we are paying attention and not a compromised fool.
Secondly, we get a sense of Trump's shrewdness. As Greenberg notes, Trump used his status on the Forbes list as a form of collateral for loans he couldn't otherwise qualify for. Trump was leveraged as hell for most of the '80s and '90s (and presumably this century). His actual net worth was much lower than people believed, but because they believed it, they loaned him money. Trump's great insight has always been to leverage America's veneration of wealth and celebrity into more wealth and celebrity. Substance has never been "on brand" for Trump. It has always been about appearance.
Finally, and today maybe most importantly, it goes to show why Trump would have gotten into bed with Russian oligarchs and siloviki. He never had the cash he said he had. He never had the properties he said he had. Fred Trump was the builder; Fred Trump created actual, tangible value. Donald Trump became a brand that you could license (often for pennies on the dollar). We got Trump Steaks and Trump Wine for this reason. He would license his name just to keep the spending money rolling in. And when Russians with money that needed laundering came calling, Donald Trump was open for business.
Trump's disdain for the common practices that presidents assume - blind trusts, divesting from conflicts of interest - is because his "empire" is much closer to the emperor's new clothes. It's a fiction he's foisted on the world and more than anything, he can't allow that fiction to be pierced.
Trump is almost certainly guilty of a ton of stuff. But he's most worried about being proven less than super rich.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
If It Mattered
Jon Chait and others have noted a basic interpretation of the latest news from the Cohen scandals. Everyone is pretty much convinced that Cohen will flip on Trump and give up what he knows about Trump to Mueller or Schneiderman of whomever.
All of this presumes that Trump is guilty.
Think about it. If you believed Trump was innocent, you'd say that you welcomed the full disclosure from Cohen, because Trump has nothing to hide. Instead, they are all acting like Trump is guilty, because what else can you believe at this point?
The saddest, most maddening thing is that it won't make a lick of difference to the Trumpenproletariat. Witch hunt! No collusion! MAGA! I hope Adam Davidson's right and the narrative is on the cusp of changing, but I'm hardly optimistic.
All of this presumes that Trump is guilty.
Think about it. If you believed Trump was innocent, you'd say that you welcomed the full disclosure from Cohen, because Trump has nothing to hide. Instead, they are all acting like Trump is guilty, because what else can you believe at this point?
The saddest, most maddening thing is that it won't make a lick of difference to the Trumpenproletariat. Witch hunt! No collusion! MAGA! I hope Adam Davidson's right and the narrative is on the cusp of changing, but I'm hardly optimistic.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Complicated
The Post has a nice summary of the issues involved in the "Starbucks issue." The obvious first issue is conscious and unconscious biases against African Americans. This is part of what Ta-Nehisi Coates was talking about when he spoke about how African Americans are not welcome in all parts of America.
This is about the "N-Word" but it begins with the premise that white people just know that everywhere welcomes them; that they own the public spaces of this country. Black people don't have that internal knowledge. I really recommend spending five minutes with this video.
The Post article goes on to address other issues about the right of a private business to curtail loitering on their premises. You don't have a "right" to hang out at a table without ordering or a right to use the restroom without buying something. The fact that this rule is bent for whites and not for blacks is where the problem exists. As the Barnes and Nobles manager says, it comes down to behavior. If you're reading a book, you're welcome to stay. If you're yelling and carrying on, you're not. What happens too often is that African Americans - especially young men - have their behavior scrutinized in levels disproportionate to their behavior. That certainly seems to be what happened at Starbucks. Those are the unconscious biases at work.
I saw a tweet from Deray McKesson criticizing Starbucks for thinking they can solve this issue with an afternoon training session. While McKesson is largely correct, I worry that setting an impossible standard - "Why can't Starbucks solve racism?" - will blunt efforts, even small ones, to make things better. Once again making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Criticism and punishment can stop bad behaviors. Starbucks fired that manager. But only praise and reward can create good behaviors. People seek out rewards, and once they internalize that, you don't have to "police it." I would've hoped that McKesson would have offered whatever help his considerable voice would have in making sure the training sessions were valuable. Criticism is easy and can make you feel good, but change is hard and slow and frustrating. If Starbucks undertakes this training and gets slammed for it being insufficient, why would they follow up? Why would they take another step? Why would they thing doing the next thing would make a difference?
If the goal is to change the behavior, scolding someone for not doing it exactly right won't change the behavior.
This is about the "N-Word" but it begins with the premise that white people just know that everywhere welcomes them; that they own the public spaces of this country. Black people don't have that internal knowledge. I really recommend spending five minutes with this video.
The Post article goes on to address other issues about the right of a private business to curtail loitering on their premises. You don't have a "right" to hang out at a table without ordering or a right to use the restroom without buying something. The fact that this rule is bent for whites and not for blacks is where the problem exists. As the Barnes and Nobles manager says, it comes down to behavior. If you're reading a book, you're welcome to stay. If you're yelling and carrying on, you're not. What happens too often is that African Americans - especially young men - have their behavior scrutinized in levels disproportionate to their behavior. That certainly seems to be what happened at Starbucks. Those are the unconscious biases at work.
I saw a tweet from Deray McKesson criticizing Starbucks for thinking they can solve this issue with an afternoon training session. While McKesson is largely correct, I worry that setting an impossible standard - "Why can't Starbucks solve racism?" - will blunt efforts, even small ones, to make things better. Once again making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Criticism and punishment can stop bad behaviors. Starbucks fired that manager. But only praise and reward can create good behaviors. People seek out rewards, and once they internalize that, you don't have to "police it." I would've hoped that McKesson would have offered whatever help his considerable voice would have in making sure the training sessions were valuable. Criticism is easy and can make you feel good, but change is hard and slow and frustrating. If Starbucks undertakes this training and gets slammed for it being insufficient, why would they follow up? Why would they take another step? Why would they thing doing the next thing would make a difference?
If the goal is to change the behavior, scolding someone for not doing it exactly right won't change the behavior.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Hostage Exchange
Maybe we could exchange Jamey Comey for Sean Hannity? Get both of them off the air. At first, with Comey, I was "Meh, whatever." He screwed up magnificently by placing the FBI's reputation with guys like Sean Hannity over doing his actual job. Comey's decision to publicize Huma Abedin's emails and not their investigation into Russia's work with Manafort, Page and possible Stone effectively made the election close enough to tip it over. (Yes, Clinton was unpopular and made mistakes. But she wins that election if Comey doesn't issue that letter.) He has kinda sorta apologized for that, and he's been a strident voice against normalizing Trump. I'm a big tent kind of guy, and Democrats need people who "look like Comey" in 2018 and 2020.
Fine.
But STFU already, dude. We get it. You read Niebuhr. You've "conflicted." He feel bad "if" your actions made Trump president. But I've heard enough of your sanctimonious whining. You should be wearing sack cloth and covered in ashes. You should give the proceeds from your book to lawyers protecting DREAMers from deportation.
Get off my TV.
And that goes for Sean Hannity, too. He has always been the blustering, bullying id of Fox News. Even more so than the departed Bill O'Reilly, Hannity is the voice of that asshole two tables over in a restaurant hating on "welfare cheats" and "those people." He's the guy Tucker "Panda Sex" Carlson wants to be, the faux tough blowhard.
Lauren Duca said it best, Hannity defending Michael Cohen without disclosing their relationship is "wildly unethical, and also perfectly on-brand for a Fox News host."
I can't wait to find out what sort of "real estate" Hannity wanted help from Cohen with.
Fine.
But STFU already, dude. We get it. You read Niebuhr. You've "conflicted." He feel bad "if" your actions made Trump president. But I've heard enough of your sanctimonious whining. You should be wearing sack cloth and covered in ashes. You should give the proceeds from your book to lawyers protecting DREAMers from deportation.
Get off my TV.
And that goes for Sean Hannity, too. He has always been the blustering, bullying id of Fox News. Even more so than the departed Bill O'Reilly, Hannity is the voice of that asshole two tables over in a restaurant hating on "welfare cheats" and "those people." He's the guy Tucker "Panda Sex" Carlson wants to be, the faux tough blowhard.
Lauren Duca said it best, Hannity defending Michael Cohen without disclosing their relationship is "wildly unethical, and also perfectly on-brand for a Fox News host."
I can't wait to find out what sort of "real estate" Hannity wanted help from Cohen with.
Monday, April 16, 2018
We Are Screwed, Part 156,984
Vox has a Voxy type piece up explaining all the ways that psychology and neurology make us act politically. In particular, it explain why partisanship is so high. Of course, these psychological insights were true 40 years ago, and we didn't have this level of partisanship. What has happened is that partisanship has reinforced existing social divisions. We've taken these positions and multiplied and amplified them to the point where they are all we hear.
I had a very interesting discussion with a friend on Twitter yesterday (yes, I know). We are both left of center, I would guess - not having surveyed her - that she's further to the left than I am. We are arguing over the Starbucks incident in Philly, and whether the corporate apology went far enough. To me, there is a section of the anti-corporate left who have always hated Starbucks because it represents a corporate behemoth that came in and drove their local, eclectic coffee joint out of business. The fact that most of the country never had that cool, eclectic coffee joint to begin with is irrelevant. Starbucks is bad.
The events in Philly represented to me the bigotry of the store manager who wouldn't let the two men sit and wait for their business associate and even more the totalistic reponse of the police who insisted on arresting the two men despite all evidence that they were doing nothing wrong. What I didn't see was a Starbucks' policy to harrass African Americans out of their stores. The reason I see this, is because my bias is to look at how institutions and individuals act in concert and in opposition. I was more heartened by the outrage of the white customers than I was upset by the initial milquetoast apology from Starbucks. The CEO later gave a much more compelling apology, but if you were already loaded to take on Starbucks, it really didn't matter. If you rooted the problem in the store manager and the cops, you had two options: go along with the outrage against Starbucks or say, "Wait a minute, why are we focused on a corporation with thousands of locations?"
When I pushed back against this, it really pissed my friend off (my language was too glib in one place). Because we knew each other well 25 years ago and have rekindled that friendship, we were able to work it out. I explained my position; she explained hers. We agreed on some points and likely still disagree on some minor points of emphasis. Because we agreed that what happened to those two men was enraging, we had common ground to work things out.
This dynamic exists very, very rarely, as the Vox article states. It is almost impossible to convince someone on the other side of an argument that they are wrong. The most tiresome argument on the internet is the continuing battle between the Sanders and Clinton camps. They aren't convincing anyone, but they are never going to let it go, even though it is largely irrelevant to the future of liberal politics, as it is rooted in the personalities of two 70+ year old politicians. (Their policies weren't all that different.)
The lack of objectivity means that a million conspiracies and pet theories bloom. The problem is that our entire system of government is based on the idea that reasoned deliberation can produce working majorities to solve social, economic and governmental problems. The article suggests that this is likely near impossible. Certainly it is in the climate of fear and anger that we currently live in.
Fear and partisanship are literally tearing the fabric of American democracy apart. Another ridiculous thing I saw in Twitter was a guy (who writes for Vox!) saying that it was racist to use the term "tribalism" against Native Americans. Yet tribalism, a retreat into a cohesive in-group, is exactly what is happening. We have gone from a nation to a series of tribes.
I had a very interesting discussion with a friend on Twitter yesterday (yes, I know). We are both left of center, I would guess - not having surveyed her - that she's further to the left than I am. We are arguing over the Starbucks incident in Philly, and whether the corporate apology went far enough. To me, there is a section of the anti-corporate left who have always hated Starbucks because it represents a corporate behemoth that came in and drove their local, eclectic coffee joint out of business. The fact that most of the country never had that cool, eclectic coffee joint to begin with is irrelevant. Starbucks is bad.
The events in Philly represented to me the bigotry of the store manager who wouldn't let the two men sit and wait for their business associate and even more the totalistic reponse of the police who insisted on arresting the two men despite all evidence that they were doing nothing wrong. What I didn't see was a Starbucks' policy to harrass African Americans out of their stores. The reason I see this, is because my bias is to look at how institutions and individuals act in concert and in opposition. I was more heartened by the outrage of the white customers than I was upset by the initial milquetoast apology from Starbucks. The CEO later gave a much more compelling apology, but if you were already loaded to take on Starbucks, it really didn't matter. If you rooted the problem in the store manager and the cops, you had two options: go along with the outrage against Starbucks or say, "Wait a minute, why are we focused on a corporation with thousands of locations?"
When I pushed back against this, it really pissed my friend off (my language was too glib in one place). Because we knew each other well 25 years ago and have rekindled that friendship, we were able to work it out. I explained my position; she explained hers. We agreed on some points and likely still disagree on some minor points of emphasis. Because we agreed that what happened to those two men was enraging, we had common ground to work things out.
This dynamic exists very, very rarely, as the Vox article states. It is almost impossible to convince someone on the other side of an argument that they are wrong. The most tiresome argument on the internet is the continuing battle between the Sanders and Clinton camps. They aren't convincing anyone, but they are never going to let it go, even though it is largely irrelevant to the future of liberal politics, as it is rooted in the personalities of two 70+ year old politicians. (Their policies weren't all that different.)
The lack of objectivity means that a million conspiracies and pet theories bloom. The problem is that our entire system of government is based on the idea that reasoned deliberation can produce working majorities to solve social, economic and governmental problems. The article suggests that this is likely near impossible. Certainly it is in the climate of fear and anger that we currently live in.
Fear and partisanship are literally tearing the fabric of American democracy apart. Another ridiculous thing I saw in Twitter was a guy (who writes for Vox!) saying that it was racist to use the term "tribalism" against Native Americans. Yet tribalism, a retreat into a cohesive in-group, is exactly what is happening. We have gone from a nation to a series of tribes.
Sunday, April 15, 2018
Cohen In Prague
There was a piece in The New Yorker about whether this was the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. It's an interesting argument, based mostly from a journalist's perspective of information and understanding rather than the nature of how politics works. Most criticisms of it have latched onto the fact that there are only four ways for Trump to leave office: He resigns (nope), he dies (that's a lot of KFC to eat), he loses the 2020 election (probably) or he gets impeached and removed from office. The last option is obviously the one people are focusing on, because there is so very little evidence that the GOP will actually do this.
Davidson's piece suggests that there is an informational tipping point in big stories. He uses Iraq in 2003 and the financial markets in 2007 as examples. Eventually the facts will assert themselves in ways that even partisans cannot ignore. Of course, partisans DO still ignore those facts. There are still people, including the current National Security Advisor, who think Iraq was a success. There are people, including the leading economic advisor to the president, who think Wall Street did nothing wrong leading up to the crash.
While there could be an inflection point whereby the crushing weight of Trump scandals break through his 35-40% Firewall of Derp, I'm guessing the reckoning will wait until November. I just don't see enough moral courage in Congressional Republicans.
Martin Longman draws attention, as others have, to the fact that it appears we have evidence that Michael Cohen went to Prague in the summer of 2016, which would corroborate a major part of the Steele Dossier. Namely that Cohen was the new contact between Russia and Trump after Manafort went down. Presumably, this is the Smoking Gun. This could be the evidence that proves direct collusion and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
It's worth noting that the FBI was investigating this before the election, but decided not to tell everyone, but did decide to announce that Huma Abedin got emails that time. You may go back to praising James Comey now.
We are so far deep into Trumpistan that I don't know where the bottom is. At what point to Republicans turn on this fantastically corrupt cabal of morons, grifters and incompetents?
Davidson's piece suggests that there is an informational tipping point in big stories. He uses Iraq in 2003 and the financial markets in 2007 as examples. Eventually the facts will assert themselves in ways that even partisans cannot ignore. Of course, partisans DO still ignore those facts. There are still people, including the current National Security Advisor, who think Iraq was a success. There are people, including the leading economic advisor to the president, who think Wall Street did nothing wrong leading up to the crash.
While there could be an inflection point whereby the crushing weight of Trump scandals break through his 35-40% Firewall of Derp, I'm guessing the reckoning will wait until November. I just don't see enough moral courage in Congressional Republicans.
Martin Longman draws attention, as others have, to the fact that it appears we have evidence that Michael Cohen went to Prague in the summer of 2016, which would corroborate a major part of the Steele Dossier. Namely that Cohen was the new contact between Russia and Trump after Manafort went down. Presumably, this is the Smoking Gun. This could be the evidence that proves direct collusion and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
It's worth noting that the FBI was investigating this before the election, but decided not to tell everyone, but did decide to announce that Huma Abedin got emails that time. You may go back to praising James Comey now.
We are so far deep into Trumpistan that I don't know where the bottom is. At what point to Republicans turn on this fantastically corrupt cabal of morons, grifters and incompetents?
Saturday, April 14, 2018
You're In Luck
I'm not sure how much I care about the Pee Tape, but I do care about this awesome article title by Jon Chait.
No Good Options, No Good Decisions
Syria is a mess. It has been a mess for almost seven years now. There are few people readily identifiable as "good guys," and the "bad guys" are both uniquely bad and yet very well entrenched in power. (Well, ISIS was entrenched in power, not so much anymore.)
ISIS is a good example of how to engage in the broader Levant. We had allies on the ground, especially Iraqi and Kurdish forces. Even Iran worked with us to help defeat ISIS. There was a manageable goal and a plan - attrition - to get there.
The Assad regime is much more entrenched than ISIS was. ISIS was effectively a bulwark against Shia/Alawite dominance in the region. It was never broadly popular for its own sake, as it embraced a medieval and restrictive form of Islam that turned off much of the population. It engaged or encouraged global terrorism. It had few to no friends who would be willing to admit as much.
The Assad regime is backed by Tehran and Moscow. There is a sizable population of Alawite and Shia Muslims who very much are invested in the survival of that regime. The problem is that those who oppose him are just as vehement in their opposition as those that support him are dedicated to his survival.
There is no political endgame that can satisfy everyone, or even lead to a fragile, uneasy peace.
Without a Clausewitzian solution - a political goal that is commensurate with the ability to acheive it - there is no military options that make sense. The broad coalition that struck Syria last night may or may not have achieved any tangible military goals. Maybe they knocked out some chemical weapons, maybe not. Doubtful since Very Stable Genius telegraphed that we were going to strike a few days in advance. This was a protest strike, not a punitive strike. There was no effort to take out Command and Control. It was as limited as possible.
Hopefully, at least, these strikes allowed Cheeto Benito a chance to ignore the Comey book, the Cohen situation, the Stormy weather and the other various and sundry scandals that are engulfing his presidency. Hopefully they protect Mueller and Rosenstein for a few more weeks.
But they did nothing to change what is happening in Syria, because there is no way to change what is happening in Syria that doesn't risk a broader war that America is simply uninterested in fighting.
ISIS is a good example of how to engage in the broader Levant. We had allies on the ground, especially Iraqi and Kurdish forces. Even Iran worked with us to help defeat ISIS. There was a manageable goal and a plan - attrition - to get there.
The Assad regime is much more entrenched than ISIS was. ISIS was effectively a bulwark against Shia/Alawite dominance in the region. It was never broadly popular for its own sake, as it embraced a medieval and restrictive form of Islam that turned off much of the population. It engaged or encouraged global terrorism. It had few to no friends who would be willing to admit as much.
The Assad regime is backed by Tehran and Moscow. There is a sizable population of Alawite and Shia Muslims who very much are invested in the survival of that regime. The problem is that those who oppose him are just as vehement in their opposition as those that support him are dedicated to his survival.
There is no political endgame that can satisfy everyone, or even lead to a fragile, uneasy peace.
Without a Clausewitzian solution - a political goal that is commensurate with the ability to acheive it - there is no military options that make sense. The broad coalition that struck Syria last night may or may not have achieved any tangible military goals. Maybe they knocked out some chemical weapons, maybe not. Doubtful since Very Stable Genius telegraphed that we were going to strike a few days in advance. This was a protest strike, not a punitive strike. There was no effort to take out Command and Control. It was as limited as possible.
Hopefully, at least, these strikes allowed Cheeto Benito a chance to ignore the Comey book, the Cohen situation, the Stormy weather and the other various and sundry scandals that are engulfing his presidency. Hopefully they protect Mueller and Rosenstein for a few more weeks.
But they did nothing to change what is happening in Syria, because there is no way to change what is happening in Syria that doesn't risk a broader war that America is simply uninterested in fighting.
Friday, April 13, 2018
Comey
Like many, I'm not necessarily of a fan of James Comey. Like many, I believe the evidence supports the assertion that his letter publicizing the re-opening the Clinton email investigation effectively tilted enough votes to Trump (or away from Clinton) to decide the election. This doesn't absolve Clinton of her mistakes or faults as a candidate, but she was winning by 5-6% when the letter came out and then collapsed to around 2-3%, which was the final margin in the popular vote. Change a tiny fraction of the votes in Pennsylvania, and we are having a very different conversation right now.
So I'm not exactly slavering to digest Comey's new book. I'm not eager to put coins in his pocket, and I'm not willing to spend hours consuming a book just to read confirmation that Trump is a douchecanoe. I know this already. I didn't need to read Fire and Fury and I don't need to read Comey's book.
It is interesting, though, how seriously the news media is taking this book. I don't know what it means, because I just don't understand how anything Comey says is really "new." The specific information and anecdotes are new, but I think we have a pretty good handle on who this guy is. Still, whatever moves a few more thousand votes here and there....
So I'm not exactly slavering to digest Comey's new book. I'm not eager to put coins in his pocket, and I'm not willing to spend hours consuming a book just to read confirmation that Trump is a douchecanoe. I know this already. I didn't need to read Fire and Fury and I don't need to read Comey's book.
It is interesting, though, how seriously the news media is taking this book. I don't know what it means, because I just don't understand how anything Comey says is really "new." The specific information and anecdotes are new, but I think we have a pretty good handle on who this guy is. Still, whatever moves a few more thousand votes here and there....
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Can Trump Protect Himself?
Martin Longman has an unusually optimistic take on how Trump may be hemmed in from firing Mueller or even replacing Rosenstein with a sycophant. Perhaps this is why Trump has been constrained from doing so. Ideally, we would get actual pre-emptive legislation from the Congress with margins large enough to override any veto. Absent that, Trump will rely on an increasingly batshit insane group of advisors, including his main source of advice: Fox and Friends.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Rats And Ships
Paul Ryan is the latest and most high profile Republican to quit. He faced an uncertain electoral fate at the hands of a steelworker who was showing some unexpected political chops and the impending doom of a blue wave. Speakers are unusually vulnerable to wave elections, and Ryan decided to flee the ship before it sunk.
Ryan's departure is obviously another sign that the political pros are not confused about what is going to happen in November. Ryan got what he wanted: a massive, regressive, debt-busting tax cut. Now he's going home to take a nice well playing sinecure at some Koch funded think tank, where he can furrow his impressive brow and worry about the poor rhetorically while working tirelessly to make their lives miserable.
The biggest question is whether Ryan will break with Trump, now that he doesn't face the wrath of the Trumpenproletariat. Ryan claims to be a moral person - policy evidence and voting record aside - and Trump has "deeply troubled" him from time to time. Now that he is free to act on his "principles" will he join Corker and Flake in the chorus of disapproval?
Or will he be the spineless lackey of the wealthy that he has always been?
Ryan's departure is obviously another sign that the political pros are not confused about what is going to happen in November. Ryan got what he wanted: a massive, regressive, debt-busting tax cut. Now he's going home to take a nice well playing sinecure at some Koch funded think tank, where he can furrow his impressive brow and worry about the poor rhetorically while working tirelessly to make their lives miserable.
The biggest question is whether Ryan will break with Trump, now that he doesn't face the wrath of the Trumpenproletariat. Ryan claims to be a moral person - policy evidence and voting record aside - and Trump has "deeply troubled" him from time to time. Now that he is free to act on his "principles" will he join Corker and Flake in the chorus of disapproval?
Or will he be the spineless lackey of the wealthy that he has always been?
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
From The Twitter Machine
I saw this quote from Scott Lemeiux: "Every accusation is a confession" is an almost infallible guide to Republican discourse in 2018.
My Attorney Got Arrested
The Michael Cohen search warrant is very interesting and potentially perilous for everyone. Search warrants on attorneys are very rare for obvious reasons, from attorney client privilege to the high cost if you cock it up. The fact that they went before a judge, and a judge signed off on it, suggests that they have something very specific and damning that they are looking for.
Trump's response is so quintessentially Trump. He accused the FBI of "breaking into" Cohen's office. I can already anticipate the Facebook shit-posting from my few remaining Republican friends about the "out of control" FBI. (While meanwhile defending the police officers who gunned down a guy standing in his backyard on a cellphone.) Trump's clear lack of understanding of how the rule of law works, combined with his "attack-attack-attack" mindset means that we have entered a perilous stage in the Mueller investigation.
Trump is apparently slipping whatever binds once held him tethered to political realities. From the exodus of guys like Cohn, McMaster and Tillerson to the elevation of hacks like Bolton and the increasing frenzies on Twitter, Trump feels less and less constrained by the norms of political office. Why should he, when he knows the Congressional GOP has his back? Firing Mueller has been as close to a red line as some GOP Congressmen have been willing to offer, but why would Trump believe them? The fact that Mueller's investigation was not behind the search warrant will mean nothing to a man who thinks a caravan of rapists is moving through the Mexican countryside.
As for the Shitgibbon's attorney himself, Cohen is effectively a mob lawyer. He behaves like one, certainly, with his brash aggressiveness absent actual legal expertise. All along, the most probable target of Mueller's investigation has been Trump's involvement with organized crime, especially Russian mobsters. We know he was excessively leveraged to Russian oligarchs; we know many of those oligarchs are both Putin's siloviki and mobsters themselves; we know Trump has been on the edges of NY organized crime for years; we know that Trump has contempt for law and the rule of law. The idea that Cohen is innocent strains credulity.
As several people have pointed out, Trump is behaving exactly as you would have expected if you had been paying attention. Trump is just being Trump: a borderline mafioso, a bully, an ignoramus and a cad. For that reason the "political cost" for Trump continuing to be Trump is likely to appear small to him. He is who he has always been.
Firing Mueller has never been more real, but then again, we have been saying that for months. Trump, like most bullies, is easily intimidated if he feels the threat is genuine. Or maybe he felt the threat didn't exist. Maybe he believed his own bullshit about Mueller not having him in his sights. Trying to figure out his mental thought processes is like trying to figure out why a toddler pooped in the dog's waterdish. That way lies a vortex of madness.
The only person who has to be relieved right now is Scott Pruitt, whose own corruption and abuse of power has faded from the headlines. That's what counts for good news if you're a resident of Trumpistan: a newer, fresher scandal has taken you off the spit.
Thanks, Republicans.
Trump's response is so quintessentially Trump. He accused the FBI of "breaking into" Cohen's office. I can already anticipate the Facebook shit-posting from my few remaining Republican friends about the "out of control" FBI. (While meanwhile defending the police officers who gunned down a guy standing in his backyard on a cellphone.) Trump's clear lack of understanding of how the rule of law works, combined with his "attack-attack-attack" mindset means that we have entered a perilous stage in the Mueller investigation.
Trump is apparently slipping whatever binds once held him tethered to political realities. From the exodus of guys like Cohn, McMaster and Tillerson to the elevation of hacks like Bolton and the increasing frenzies on Twitter, Trump feels less and less constrained by the norms of political office. Why should he, when he knows the Congressional GOP has his back? Firing Mueller has been as close to a red line as some GOP Congressmen have been willing to offer, but why would Trump believe them? The fact that Mueller's investigation was not behind the search warrant will mean nothing to a man who thinks a caravan of rapists is moving through the Mexican countryside.
As for the Shitgibbon's attorney himself, Cohen is effectively a mob lawyer. He behaves like one, certainly, with his brash aggressiveness absent actual legal expertise. All along, the most probable target of Mueller's investigation has been Trump's involvement with organized crime, especially Russian mobsters. We know he was excessively leveraged to Russian oligarchs; we know many of those oligarchs are both Putin's siloviki and mobsters themselves; we know Trump has been on the edges of NY organized crime for years; we know that Trump has contempt for law and the rule of law. The idea that Cohen is innocent strains credulity.
As several people have pointed out, Trump is behaving exactly as you would have expected if you had been paying attention. Trump is just being Trump: a borderline mafioso, a bully, an ignoramus and a cad. For that reason the "political cost" for Trump continuing to be Trump is likely to appear small to him. He is who he has always been.
Firing Mueller has never been more real, but then again, we have been saying that for months. Trump, like most bullies, is easily intimidated if he feels the threat is genuine. Or maybe he felt the threat didn't exist. Maybe he believed his own bullshit about Mueller not having him in his sights. Trying to figure out his mental thought processes is like trying to figure out why a toddler pooped in the dog's waterdish. That way lies a vortex of madness.
The only person who has to be relieved right now is Scott Pruitt, whose own corruption and abuse of power has faded from the headlines. That's what counts for good news if you're a resident of Trumpistan: a newer, fresher scandal has taken you off the spit.
Thanks, Republicans.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Guns Don't Make You Safe
Even if you're a cop. Or maybe even especially if you're a cop.
In a country awash in lethal weaponry, why wouldn't cops resort to lethal violence first?
In a country awash in lethal weaponry, why wouldn't cops resort to lethal violence first?
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Wishing Ill On People
I try not to wish ill on people I disagree with. But sometimes, all I want is a natural consequence for evil, stupid actions. So am I wrong for wanting Ralph Norman to accidentally shoot his dick off the next time he pulls out a loaded pistol and starts waving it around?
Friday, April 6, 2018
Party Of Calhoun
In assessing the long decline of the Republican Party from Eisenhower to Trump, we have to take special note of the Congressional Republicans who have been able to leverage their relative anonymity to fundamentally screw up American political institutions. Newt Gingrich comes first, with his maximalist approach to politics, eventually leading to things like the Hastert Rule that created parliamentary levels of party loyalty in a congressional system not designed to handle this.
When I look at John Boehner or even the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver Paul Ryan, I see men with whom I share almost zero policy objectives. But I see men who are hamstrung by the constituents they represent and the party they must work within. Boehner in particular was a guy who wanted to legislate and lead, but couldn't because his co-partisans are nuts.
Mitch McConnell, however, stands alone. No single person has been more responsible for the degradation of our governing institutions over the last 20 years. Sure, Trump will pass him any day now, but Donald's gonna Donald. McConnell, frankly, should have known better. The Senate was always a borderline dysfunctional institution. He busted it to a million pieces.
I certainly hope we have a situation in 2019 where Trump tries to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court and the Democrats deny him the opportunity. But I'm just not sure we have a Democratic party willing to fight that dirty. Or maybe McConnell has sufficiently altered the landscape to represent his own twisted version of what American governance should look like.
When I look at John Boehner or even the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver Paul Ryan, I see men with whom I share almost zero policy objectives. But I see men who are hamstrung by the constituents they represent and the party they must work within. Boehner in particular was a guy who wanted to legislate and lead, but couldn't because his co-partisans are nuts.
Mitch McConnell, however, stands alone. No single person has been more responsible for the degradation of our governing institutions over the last 20 years. Sure, Trump will pass him any day now, but Donald's gonna Donald. McConnell, frankly, should have known better. The Senate was always a borderline dysfunctional institution. He busted it to a million pieces.
I certainly hope we have a situation in 2019 where Trump tries to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court and the Democrats deny him the opportunity. But I'm just not sure we have a Democratic party willing to fight that dirty. Or maybe McConnell has sufficiently altered the landscape to represent his own twisted version of what American governance should look like.
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Unpresidented
In the Hall of Corrupt Presidents, Warren Harding and Ulysses Grant sit just below Richard Nixon. Both Harding and Grant were personally honest - unlike Nixon - but they were surrounded by aides whose constant attempts at self-enrichment cemented their status near the bottom of presidential rankings. (Grant is making a belated comeback for his work on civil rights. Harding doesn't really have anything to hang his hat on.)
Let's take a Harding scandal - Teapot Dome. Here, the Secretary of the Interior took bribes in order to transfer Naval oil reserves to private oil companies. It was a pretty clear cut case of someone bribing a Cabinet official in return for preferential treatment.
One of the hallmarks of the still young (I know, I know) Trump administration has been its corruption. Of course, a lot of the blatant giveaways of public goods are part and parcel of Republican governance. Companies and the rich don't need to bribe Republican politicians, because Republicans will give them a bunch of what they want anyway. The Trump tax cut is as good an example as any of this dynamic.
Can we compare any of the Trump scandals to Teapot Dome, the biggest governmental scandal until Watergate? What's more, are there scandals that will disrupt his base's fervent support for him?
There are abundant examples of Trump enriching himself or having others enrich him through the use of his properties. However, that seems "on brand" for Trump, like the Stormy Daniels Saga, so it's bad, but unlikely to make a dent in the MAGA crowd.
There are ample examples of Cabinet level officials abusing their power and taxpayer's money. Ben Carson's table, Tom Price's travel, Ryan Zinke's travel, Scott Pruitt's travel, Steve Mnuchin's travels....I'm sensing a trend here. I would start running ads in suburban districts slamming the Trump administration for traveling in private jets and first class, while the airlines shrink the size of coach seats to roughly the size of an infant car seat. Play up the privileged mien of these bastards who think they can skip the indignities of air travel that the rest of us must endure.
If there is one potential for direct, easily understandable graft, though, I think it might be found in Trump's manipulating the stock market. If I'm Eric Schneiderman, I want to crawl all over if any Trump confidants were shorting Amazon stock before Trump went after them. Or Time Warner and AT&T stock before shutting down that deal. The potential for stock manipulation by a president is immense. This is why most presidents have put their assets in blind trusts.
I believe that the House will be flipped in the suburbs, but the Senate will be held in the exurbs. Winning the Senate races in Indiana, West Virginia, South Dakota and Tennessee won't happen in the back of the Mueller investigation. The Trumpenproletariat have made up their mind about Russia. While some of them might be flipped when the whole story comes out, the fact is that the Russia story is messy; it's incredibly complicated.
If we can prove that Trump is benefitting by tanking stocks while his cronies and children short them, that's pretty easily understood by a lot of people. Plus, people like Amazon; they may even have a few shares.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is some straight up bribery going on in this administration, and that it will wind up being the most corrupt in American history. A fish rots from the head.
Finding that easily understandable scandal like Teapot Dome will be important in the short term though.
I'm adding a new "tag." "Swamp Things."
Let's take a Harding scandal - Teapot Dome. Here, the Secretary of the Interior took bribes in order to transfer Naval oil reserves to private oil companies. It was a pretty clear cut case of someone bribing a Cabinet official in return for preferential treatment.
One of the hallmarks of the still young (I know, I know) Trump administration has been its corruption. Of course, a lot of the blatant giveaways of public goods are part and parcel of Republican governance. Companies and the rich don't need to bribe Republican politicians, because Republicans will give them a bunch of what they want anyway. The Trump tax cut is as good an example as any of this dynamic.
Can we compare any of the Trump scandals to Teapot Dome, the biggest governmental scandal until Watergate? What's more, are there scandals that will disrupt his base's fervent support for him?
There are abundant examples of Trump enriching himself or having others enrich him through the use of his properties. However, that seems "on brand" for Trump, like the Stormy Daniels Saga, so it's bad, but unlikely to make a dent in the MAGA crowd.
There are ample examples of Cabinet level officials abusing their power and taxpayer's money. Ben Carson's table, Tom Price's travel, Ryan Zinke's travel, Scott Pruitt's travel, Steve Mnuchin's travels....I'm sensing a trend here. I would start running ads in suburban districts slamming the Trump administration for traveling in private jets and first class, while the airlines shrink the size of coach seats to roughly the size of an infant car seat. Play up the privileged mien of these bastards who think they can skip the indignities of air travel that the rest of us must endure.
If there is one potential for direct, easily understandable graft, though, I think it might be found in Trump's manipulating the stock market. If I'm Eric Schneiderman, I want to crawl all over if any Trump confidants were shorting Amazon stock before Trump went after them. Or Time Warner and AT&T stock before shutting down that deal. The potential for stock manipulation by a president is immense. This is why most presidents have put their assets in blind trusts.
I believe that the House will be flipped in the suburbs, but the Senate will be held in the exurbs. Winning the Senate races in Indiana, West Virginia, South Dakota and Tennessee won't happen in the back of the Mueller investigation. The Trumpenproletariat have made up their mind about Russia. While some of them might be flipped when the whole story comes out, the fact is that the Russia story is messy; it's incredibly complicated.
If we can prove that Trump is benefitting by tanking stocks while his cronies and children short them, that's pretty easily understood by a lot of people. Plus, people like Amazon; they may even have a few shares.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is some straight up bribery going on in this administration, and that it will wind up being the most corrupt in American history. A fish rots from the head.
Finding that easily understandable scandal like Teapot Dome will be important in the short term though.
I'm adding a new "tag." "Swamp Things."
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Fifty Years
It was fifty years ago today that Martin Luther King was assassinated while working for the rights of striking sanitation workers in Memphis.
In the subsequent five decades, we have seen many hard barriers to African Americans and other minorities weaken or crumble. King's work unleashed opportunities for not only African Americans, but women, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, immigrants and LGBT people. His vision of a pluralistic America that valued everyone is increasingly the vision of Americans.
In the 1980s, most conservatives argued against making his birthday a national holiday. They lost that battle. They have been losing the battle with King's legacy ever since, so they have tried to re-write his legacy. King - they argue - wants a race-blind America. Any efforts to help disadvantaged Americans must be contradictory to King's "I have a dream" speech, and his desire for people to be seen for the "content of their character."
This is both ahistorical and an incomplete understanding of King's work and life. King stood between radical and potential destructive forces on one side and reactionary and actually destructive forces on the other. He offered America a middle road between the volcanic, simmering anger of African Americans and the violent repression of much of American society. He offered communication with Lincoln's better angels of our nature.
But he was emphatically a rabble rouser. He attacked poverty, the Vietnam War, sexism...He worked his whole life to tear down the ediface of WASP male rule that this country was built upon. He desired, though, not merely to tear down, but to build something worthy of our stated creed as a country. He aspired to an America the word "equality" meant something. Where "freedom" had a positive meaning rather than simply being a negative invocation of what someone couldn't do to you.
Donald Trump explicitly argues for a return to a time before King's life and death. His policies are designed to attack the idea of a plural, multicultural, tolerant America. Trump's generation is the final generation who saw King as a radical "outside agitator" and not the living expression of a better version of America. There are still people younger than me who see King as the socialist, racialist agitator. There are still people who would tear down his work in every generation.
Not as many though. A fewer each year.
In the subsequent five decades, we have seen many hard barriers to African Americans and other minorities weaken or crumble. King's work unleashed opportunities for not only African Americans, but women, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, immigrants and LGBT people. His vision of a pluralistic America that valued everyone is increasingly the vision of Americans.
In the 1980s, most conservatives argued against making his birthday a national holiday. They lost that battle. They have been losing the battle with King's legacy ever since, so they have tried to re-write his legacy. King - they argue - wants a race-blind America. Any efforts to help disadvantaged Americans must be contradictory to King's "I have a dream" speech, and his desire for people to be seen for the "content of their character."
This is both ahistorical and an incomplete understanding of King's work and life. King stood between radical and potential destructive forces on one side and reactionary and actually destructive forces on the other. He offered America a middle road between the volcanic, simmering anger of African Americans and the violent repression of much of American society. He offered communication with Lincoln's better angels of our nature.
But he was emphatically a rabble rouser. He attacked poverty, the Vietnam War, sexism...He worked his whole life to tear down the ediface of WASP male rule that this country was built upon. He desired, though, not merely to tear down, but to build something worthy of our stated creed as a country. He aspired to an America the word "equality" meant something. Where "freedom" had a positive meaning rather than simply being a negative invocation of what someone couldn't do to you.
Donald Trump explicitly argues for a return to a time before King's life and death. His policies are designed to attack the idea of a plural, multicultural, tolerant America. Trump's generation is the final generation who saw King as a radical "outside agitator" and not the living expression of a better version of America. There are still people younger than me who see King as the socialist, racialist agitator. There are still people who would tear down his work in every generation.
Not as many though. A fewer each year.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Another Brick In The Wall
Eugene Robinson notes that after a week of quiet, Trump has exploded on Twitter again, proferring lie after lie about immigration. Interestingly, Robinson posits that it is because Trump isn't getting his wall built and he worries about losing his nativist base. More likely, he's simply hearing that he's not getting the wall built from his daily infusions of Fox and Friends or from the spittle-flecked ravings of Lou Dobbs.
Either way, I expect the treatment of Hispancis, whether undocumented or not, to get worse.
Either way, I expect the treatment of Hispancis, whether undocumented or not, to get worse.
Monday, April 2, 2018
Draining The Swamp
Running against corrupt Washington is always a great strategy. Trump's best message was "I'm going to drain the swamp." His message was that he was too rich to be corrupted. That really resonated with those who thought the system was rigged against them.
Since then, all we have seen from Trump is a nexus of corruption and self-dealing, combined with massive giveaways to the rich. Jon Chait notes that this message is a perfect roadmap for Democrats to regain control of the government. Corruption is widely regarded as a universal evil in American politics. If there is anything that can get the MAGA crowd to abandon Trump, it's a universal message of Trump's corruption.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall notes that many liberals tend to lose the thread (unsurprisingly) when dealing with Trump's corruption.
Since then, all we have seen from Trump is a nexus of corruption and self-dealing, combined with massive giveaways to the rich. Jon Chait notes that this message is a perfect roadmap for Democrats to regain control of the government. Corruption is widely regarded as a universal evil in American politics. If there is anything that can get the MAGA crowd to abandon Trump, it's a universal message of Trump's corruption.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall notes that many liberals tend to lose the thread (unsurprisingly) when dealing with Trump's corruption.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)