Pitchforks! Get Your Pitchforks!

Holy shitballs, people.

What are your plans for the revolution?

Howard Schultz

Schultz is getting eviscerated for the tone deaf launch to his "campaign."  People have noted that former McCain aid, Steve Schmidt, is behind it.  The common wisdom is that Schultz will siphon votes from the anti-Trump camp and make it easier for him to get re-elected.

I'm wondering if Schmidt is trying to do one of two things.

First, could he be thinking that Schultz could split the right of center vote, making it easier for a Democrat to win a plurality.  I think that misses the tenor of the electorate right now.  All those suburban Republicans who flipped to Democrat last November will absolutely vote against Trump in 2020, in ways that Schmidt doesn't seem to get.

Second, and more likely, is that Schmidt is trying to create a lifeboat for what he remembers as the Republican party.  Schultz represents that noblesse oblige, patrician billionaire wing that Schmidt wants to resurrect.  If so, he's a cycle too early.

Of course the third possibility is that Schmidt is simply trying to make a shitton of money off Schultz while he can.

Very Stupid

When Juan Guaido declared himself the interim president of Venezuela, a chorus of people in this country on the left, decried this as another "right wing coup" hatched by the CIA.  This appears to be, in a word, bullshit.  While America's history in Latin America is mostly terrible, it is abundantly clear that the people of Venezuela are tired of the colossal misrule of the Maduro government.

Meanwhile, on the right, Maduro is being held up as the failure of socialism.  This suggests that there is a policy link between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and whatever the hell Venezuela has as a ruling ideology.

Anne Applebaum has a nice piece on why the old language of ideology is bereft at this moment of adding clarity.  Leaders like Trump, Maduro, Duterte, Erdogan, Orban, and Xi are less about ideological government and more the head of organized crime syndicates who are looting their country.  Venezuela is a petro-state that gave some patronage money to the poor, as their leadership siphoned off millions.  No one should be defending that, no matter what America's history in Latin America is.

Professor Warren's Very Good Idea

I am not committing to a presidential candidate right now, but Elizabeth Warren is off to a fine start with her idea of a wealth tax.  One aspect of inequality that doesn't get addressed is the difference between wealth and income.  Wealth is the combined net accumulation of all our assets minus our debts.  Income is simply what we make in a given year.  The problem is that wealth accumulates over time and across generations. 

Warren is proposing a tax on great wealth, and it's a really good idea.  Some things will have to happen to make it a reality, including control of the Senate, but my guess is that this will be very popular.  Taxing wealth over $50M at 2% and wealth over a billion at 3% could raise close to $3T over a decade.  You want to pay for new infrastructure or universal pre-school?  There's your piggy bank.  A wealth tax would also allow us to get rid of the complicated estate tax, because wealth itself would be taxed, whether it transferred or not.

A few things would have to occur though to make this really work.  We would likely have to make sure that we didn't create some sort of parasitic class of billionaires who have a Singapore passport and a US address.  Ideally, you would get all the G20 countries (or most of them) to pass a similar tax.

But there are two long term threats to our Republic: climate change and rampant inequality.  Climate change will alter our world in ways we can't begin to fathom, whereas inequality will erode our democratic institutions. 

This is an excellent step to address at least part of that issue.  Use that $2.75T to create a Green New Deal, and suddenly America's future would look a lot brighter than its present.

That And Five Dollars Will Get You A Caramel Macchiato

Howard Schultz needs to go away.

Is It Spring Yet?

This last week was a bear.  Next week will be a bear riding a tiger firing a bazooka.

I would like to see the sun again.  I would like to sit on my porch and read.

Caveman

There is no spinning this, despite some lame efforts by those in the Cult of Trump.  Trump got his absolute ass handed to him.  Nancy Pelosi, in particular, held together the Democratic Congress and prevented Trump from getting a single concession from his shutdown.  The pressure points were identified.  Yes, this is only a three week reprieve, but it allows federal workers to get some back pay.  And if they try this nonsense again, you can anticipate a more forceful and organized reaction from the get-go.  I would hope that the flight attendant and pilot's unions would basically say, "Fund the government or we won't fly." 

Shutdowns are always stupid and unsuccessful.  The Republicans are the party of shutdowns.  Democrats consistently have been for keeping the government open.  As the shutdown lingered, people turned hard against Trump and the GOP.  Over 70% of Americans thought this was a bad idea.  You can't get 70% of Americans to agree on anything.

Because he won such an unexpected victory in 2016, there has been a tendency to invest Trump with political skills he doesn't possess.  If the media had not tried to balance coverage with bullshit both-sides coverage of things like "her emails" and the Clinton Foundation, and covered allegations in relation to the proof behind them, then 2016 turns out differently.  If Comey doesn't issue his letter, then 2016 turns out differently. 

Trump had demonstrated two things.

First, he is exactly as awful and criminal a person as Democrats were saying he was in 2016.  That is sinking in.  He really is the King of Bankruptcy, not the Art of the Deal guy.

Second, Trump is the logical extension of the trends in the GOP that Democrats have been pointing out for two decades. 

Lindsay Graham said if Trump doesn't win the shutdown, his presidency is effectively over.

Yup.

Time In The Barrel

Of all the odious, trollish, shitspackled human things that have surrounded Donald Trump over the years, few are worse than Roger Stone.  Stone has been lurking around the edges of conservatism since Nixon, and from Watergate, Stone only learned that you'd better not get caught.

Well, you're caught now, you bastard.

Partisanship And The Presidency

This is a really interesting piece on how polarization is tied to the closeness of our elections.  The most interesting comparison (again) is the Gilded Age.  Elections for Congress whipped back and forth between parties.  Ironically, there wasn't a huge amount of ideological or policy differences between the parties, but the high partisanship meant that small issues and personality became huge drivers in who controlled Congress.

The Senate will be a heavy lift for years, but if we can ever reach a stable Democratic majority - based on demographic change - we might actually be able to govern our own country for a change.

Venezeula

The Maduro government is a catastrophe.  We have to start there.  The Venezuelan people are rising up against it, because Maduro has rigged elections.  Taking to the streets is their only option.

Sadly, we are now looking at twin responses.  From the left, "Why is America overthrowing the Venezuelan government?"  From the right, "Release the War Pig!"  Neither of these is helpful.  Hoping that Trump won't decide on the worst possible decision is not a great hope.  Intervening in Venezuela in any way would be a massive disaster, both because of America's history there and because of Trump's unique toxicity in Latin America.

Using military force in Caracas would be the way a reasonably cunning Republican would get out of the shutdown impasse.  "I didn't want to re-open the government, but we had to bomb Maduro" is something Dick Cheney would come up with before lunch.  But the long term stability of Venezuela requires a Venezuelan solution.  Hopefully Trump's incompetence will give them enough time to arrive at that.

Scene From A Shut Down

Pelosi: I don't think we can have you give the State of the Union address during the shut down.

Trump: I'm coming anyway.  Stop me.

Pelosi: You can't come.

Trump: Fine <furiously thinks of way to insult her>.....NANCY.

END SCENE


I do love Nancy Smash.

But...Why?

Polling is not moving in Trump's direction.

New CBS poll: 
Trump approval rating: 36%
Americans who oppose shutting down the government over the wall: 71%

Politico poll:
Blame Trump: 49%
Blame Dems: 35%
Trump Job Approval Negative: 57%

What is so fascinating about this absolute shitshow is that it is a complete own goal.  Trump and GOP are getting hammered by this, and they have zero idea how to crawl down from the precipice that they have scrambled upon. 

Going back to Gingrich, Americans have typically not been in favor of their government shutting down in a flourish of performative cruelty. 

Norms

"Rules and norms" became a thing a few years back when Norm Ornstein  -  a fellow at the conservative AEI - noted that the Republican Party had become a radical outlier, waging war on American rules and norms.  Now cometh the days of the Trump.  Trump has violated so many rules that he will likely be found in violation of any number of campaign finance laws, tax laws, criminal statutes and so on.  The violation of norms is harder to measure.  What happens when a norm is violated?  How do we re-create something that evolved over time?

The shutdown is a clear example of violating norms. The government should pay its employees.  The government should pass legislation through regular order.  The government should find minimal common ground in order to fulfill basic responsibilities.

None of the above should be up for negotiation.

However, when we look at the Age of Trump, we have to look at who proceeded him.  Newt Gingrich began the process of "government by hostage taking" back in 1994.  Mitch McConnell took up that banner in the Obama administration.  Trump has violated all sorts of norms about how we expect Presidents to behave.  His tweets, his disdain for the doing the actual job, his inability to reach out to Americans who don't think exactly like him.  But the longest shutdown in US history is not solely a Trump problem.  Or rather, like so many things, Trump has simply exaggerated tendencies within the GOP that have been peaking for years.

America has a Trump problem, sure.  But as Trump (hopefully) becomes sidelined through his rule breaking, let's not forget that the norm breaking preceded him.  If we don't bury the GOP, it will continue to plague our institutions.

Age Incapacity

It's a big, old, fast-paced world out there.  There's all sorts of crazy things like Instantgram and Snapbook, Facespace and Googleplex.  It's a tough, complicated world for someone whose mental faculties were never that sharp to begin with.  Someone like Donald Trump.

Trump was shipped off to military school back in the '60s.  I have only been to NYMA in recent years, but it was a rather sad, shabby place.  The history of military schools isn't exactly a catalog of excellence.  Especially back then, military schools were either for the sons of career soldiers or were for problem kids.  "He's an undisciplined punk, send him to military school."  This attitude, combined with a woeful ignorance about learning disabilities, meant that military schools like NYMA likely became de facto institutions for kids with learning differences.

Donald Trump is attention deficit disorder.  Goldwater Rule...whatever.  He has never manifested an ability to focus.  He consumes stimulants in the form of Diet Coke (confirmed) and Adderall (alleged).  He has also - as a reasonably wealthy man - been able to avoid having to deal with these attentional issues in a straightforward way.  Most people can either develop or be taught coping skills to deal with learning differences, but Trump never had to.

Age brings cognitive decline. It also brings perspective that can become wisdom.  Wisdom comes from meaningful reflection on experience.  Trump never reflected on his experiences in a meaningful way.  He has become fixated on the idea of loyalty, but that's all he has done by way of reflecting on things.

Trump has routinely been called "America's Racist Uncle."  He's that family member who forwards racist or sexist emails, and then gets pissed when his niece calls him on it.

Enter Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani had a completely undeserved reputation as a brilliant crime fighter and competent mayor.  In fact, he was at the right place (NYC) and the right time (a period of overall decline in crime and increase in wealth in the nation's financial centers).  He has become the face of Trump's legal team, because no competent lawyer will come within miles of the sinking ship that is the SS Trump.

But Giuliani is also just another Old White Dude.  Like Chuck Grassley or Mitch McConnell (or for that matter Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders), Giuliani seems increasingly lost in the trappings of his own mind.  Rigidity is an attribute of older brains.  Younger brains are more "elastic."  That's simply the biology of aging.  That's why Aaron Sorkin can eat a bag of salted dicks.

Increasingly, I'm becoming convinced we need a mandatory retirement age for important public figures.  The world just moves too fast.

Through Your Own, Singular Lens

The issue with the Covington Boys isn't going away.  The initial video was damning.  Then came the broader issue of the role of the Black Hebrew Israelites.  That clearly showed that the boys were emotionally escalated when Nathan Phillips interceded between the two groups.  It didn't exonerate them, but it was important context.  Nevertheless, RW media turned the boys into martyrs on the altar of "intolerant PC culture."

More videos have surfaced.  They are bad.  Really bad.

The BHI stuff does not exonerate them.  It contextualizes it somewhat. But in the end, what you saw on the video is what happened. They aren't victims of anything but the just consequences of their own actions.

Everyone will see this through their own political lens.  If you think racism and sexism are bad, then it will be impossible for you to see this as anything but a video recording of the incubator of racism and sexism.  If you think racism and sexism aren't that big a deal, then this isn't a big deal.

And once you realize that, it's tough to accept that we live in a world that can ever agree on anything.

Oh, FFS

Mike Pence actually referenced MLK in defense of the racist monument that is the border wall.  A man whose entire life was about building bridges...and that idiot thinks he would support a wall.

As a history teacher, this makes my brain hurt.

So Messed Up

Presumably, you've seen the images of a bunch of MAGA wearing, smirking teenaged boys harassing and mocking a Native American elder of the Omaha nation and Vietnam veteran.  There is a lot to unpack about that incident, even leaving aside the latest example of how Trump's own racism is cultivating racism in certain corners of our culture.  They weren't wearing those hats by accident.

First, the word privilege gets thrown around a lot, but Christ on a unicycle, is there a better representation of it than these well-off white boys surrounding this man to belittle him.  They figured there would no consequences for their actions, because they aren't really familiar for being held to the standards of common decency that most of the rest of the 21st century has landed on. Now that they are being held to these standards, that there could be an accountability moment, we will begin to hear how they are "the real victims here."  The movement from inoculated privilege to finding out that there is an emerging power dynamic that refuses to excuse abhorrent behavior from cruel boys is so unsettling to them, they begin to cloak themselves in the mantle of the oppressed.  As if they had any idea what this means, based on a few days of social media backlash.

What we are learning about their high school, Covington Christian, is very disturbing. Some of this gibes with the revelations from the Kavanaugh hearings about the stew of toxic masculinity burbling up from these all-male, mostly white, "elite" schools. My school was all white, all male and the seat of privilege for most of its existence.  As a student, there were some students of color, though not many.  Since my return to teach here, I've seen an increased willingness to struggle with these difficult questions.  Last year, we had a series of very ugly incidents - all anonymous - that prompted very hard conversations and unpleasant self-reflection.  I would lie if I said I wasn't worried about the coming week, as it is the anniversary of last year's ugliness. But the very presence of students of color, from America and around the world, and faculty of color means that we will not shy from having those conversations.  We have a context for this.

And maybe those conversations work.  Not for everyone.  Some of those MAGA-hat wearing assholes are assholes and no amount of teaching or modeling will stop them from being assholes.  Fundamentally, though, they are kids.  And kids need instruction.  They need shaping.  What we know about Covington Christian does not fill me with confidence that the right lessons will be learned.  They behaved this way because of the culture they come from, and I doubt returning to that culture will solve this.

Digital lynch mobs are not helpful.  These are still kids.  Shame does work, though.  The question is, are most of those young man capable of knowing shame over this incident? Who will be there to guide them through this experience?  There isn't a single faculty member of color at Covington Christian.  There are almost no students of color.  Who will be the voice to express how to come back from this?  Covington Christian has already failed these boys, and they will fail them again, most likely, by not having the resources to teach them why what they did was wrong and how to make restitution.  Their parents  - who selected the closest thing to a white's only school as they legally could - are also unlikely to be helpful.

But by all means... let's talk about how wrong this advertisement is.

UPDATE: In an interesting twist, Philips began the song in order to intercede between the Covington kids and a group of African American boys belonging to an unusual organization that I can't claim familiarity with.  The first interaction between the Covington boys and the Black Hebrew Israelites is basically distilled teenage boys expressing themselves through the violent lens of confrontation.  Everything that holds about the Covington boys applies to the BHI boys.  Nathan Philips was trying to prevent a bad event from happening, and for that, the Covington boys turned on him.

UPDATE 2: I think Josh Marshall's take is pretty much on point.  The context is some more confused than originally presented, but that doesn't exculpate the Covington Boys.

Buzzfeed/Buzzsaw

I didn't write about the Buzzfeed scoop yesterday, because it's always best to let the wildest claims about Trump marinate for a while.  Interestingly, Mueller's office issued a very oddly worded refutation of some of the facts of that story.  Josh Marshall has a nice run down of what the refutation could mean. 

Mueller's office is incredibly leak free, and that is because they know that any premature disclosure of what they know could force Trump to close them down or issue pardons.  The idea is to gather everything into one huge report and then dump everything at once, so that Trump can wriggle out.  Mueller doesn't want to rely on Senate Republicans for protection.

But read the statement:

BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.

As Marshall notes, it says "to the Special Counsel's Office."  The source of the story is almost certainly within the Southern District of New York USAG's office.  They leak.  Mueller doesn't.  At first, the Office of Special Counsel declined to comment.  Notably, no White House spokesperson has categorically denied the allegations that Trump suborned perjury.  So, what is inaccurate about the story? 

There is this bit from the story:

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. 

Again, the Trump Organization has largely been investigated by SDNY.  Perhaps they mischaracterized HOW Mueller learned of instructions for Cohen to lie to Congress?  Maybe THEY didn't interview him, but SDNY did and passed that information on to Special Counsel?  Who knows?  The statement from Mueller's team is very vague. 

Buzzfeed's reporters on this story are very good reporters.  They have gone back and checked with their sources.  They are standing by the story.  Presumably, this means that their sources are not people from the Trump orbit who might try to ratf-ck the investigation by issuing misleading claims. 

Marshall also notes that Rod Rosenstein might be part of the motivation to issue the statement:

But if a story like this is out there, this damning to the President and is in some material and significant way wrong, it quite plausible to me that (Rosenstein) would have insisted the Mueller’s office release a statement. It’s equally plausible that the decision was Mueller’s.

Or maybe it's wrong in the details, but the overall gist of it is correct, and Rosenstein is demanding that they issue a statement to put out fires at Justice.

Prior to yesterday, the idea that Trump suborned perjury from Cohen was certainly plausible, but there was no evidence.  Buzzfeed claims to have seen evidence that this happened.  The OSC has issued a very tightly worded denial of that story.

We are back to where we were Thursday, in many ways.  I don't think I can firmly say that Buzzfeed got played or that their story is accurate.  Certainly it's a powerful reminder to take these initial stories with a grain of salt. 

Sadly, the contradictory statements on this means that the impact will be blunted.  The first article of impeachment against Nixon was going to be suborning perjury.  That's why this report is such a huge deal.  But if we have contradictory reports and we don't know for sure whether this happened for months, and then SDNY or OSC releases that it's true in April, the impact of that will be lessened.

Alternatively, Trump's corruption extends in some many directions, that one charge more or less won't matter.

This Is So, So Good

This take on Brexit is amazing writing and analysis all in one.

Time To Get Real

Trump is a sociopath.  He's not going to re-open the government because people are suffering.  He could give a shit.  Things have to be forced. 

It's time for every TSA agent in America to get "sick" for the next 48 hours.  Every single one.  Shut down air travel completely.

Then let's see if we can't re-open the government over Trump's veto.

Nancy Smash

For everyone in the Democratic Caucus that doubted Nancy Pelosi's ability to be the face of anti-Trump politics: Eat My Shorts.  Once again, she has demonstrated that she is the most adept political in-fighter the Democrats have.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have mastered social media, but the ability to leverage the institutions of the Capital is something that comes with experience.

We've reached the point where the shutdown is having real economic consequences, and several polls have Trump losing support among the one group that still liked him: Whites Without College Degrees.  Losing the WWC vote effectively means his presidency is over.  There are signs that we are headed for a recession, including volatility in the stock market, stagnant income, and the twin policy threats of the shutdown and Brexit.  One of the truisms of Trump's administration is that he has had historically low numbers for a president during an economic expansion.  If the economy contracts, we will see just how far WWC grievance can paper over the reality that this is the worst presidency we've ever seen in terms of competence and honesty.

Pelosi's job is to keep Trump off balance and on the defensive, and the current strategy of depriving him of the limelight should keep working, until we get some hearings going.  They should focus less on the morality of the wall and more on the idea of government by extortion (temper tantrum, in Pelosi's phrase).  Otherwise, keep on smashing, Nancy.

The Stupidest Timeline

We are living the stupidest timeline.  We are in the midst of a government shutdown, because the President is having a tantrum over his wall.  He had control of both Houses of Congress, but didn't get it built then.  So now, we are suffering though an unplanned and poorly thought out shutdown that will cause an economic slowdown.

In Britain, the Brexit situation is hurtling towards its almost inevitable crash.  Cameron's cynical ploy to lance the pustule that was UKIP by having a referendum has led to a situation with no good outcomes.  Now the worst outcome - Hard Brexit - seems the most likely.

I've been predicting a recession for 2019.  Some of it is the natural slackening of the business cycle. But the two unforced errors of the shutdown and Brexit are going to be major contributing causes.

Lots Of News

The Brexit vote is today.

William Barr is trying to get confirmed as Attorney General.

A judge barred the Trump Administration from asking the citizenship question on census forms.

The shutdown continues.

Republican have finally realized that Steve King is as racist as we have been saying all along.

But for some reason, the only thing I can think of is Trump serving the Clemson football team a bunch of lukewarm Big Macs.

Meanwhile, In Important News

This study from the APA is tremendously important.  "Toxic masculinity" is a tremendous problem, and in manifests in and arises from a variety of ways.  There's a poisonous blend of high and low expectations of men, especially boys.  As boys typically mature later than girls, they come into conflict with the accelerated expectations that we increasingly place on elementary school children.  Standardized testing and the requirement for order that large classes need means that rambunctious boys (and girls, but that's a much smaller subset) struggle to find their academic footing.

Struggling to define themselves in positive ways, boys rely on masculine stereotypes to provide emotional shelter.  Playground masculinity starts as a cloak, but becomes a straightjacket. 

The article twice mentioned stoicism as being part of toxic masculinity, and I understand they are referring to emotional distance.  But I've found basic stoic ideas to be very helpful in relieving some of the burdensome expectations of the world on masculinity.  Stoicism is highly and happily fatalistic.  "Do not obsess over that which you cannot control.  Things will unfold as they should."  Part of the problem with stereotypical masculinity is that it demands command.  To be a man is to dominate.  Yourself, your situation, your peers.  That's unrealistic, obviously.  Stoicism argues against mastery over everything except yourself, knowing that that is the only thing anyone has control over anyway.

There is something rotten in our society.  Despite living in a time of true abundance and relative peace, we kill ourselves and each other with appalling regularity.  We are not a happy people. 

How can we be, when we spend our lives trying to become what other people tell us we should be?

As I Was Saying

Martin Longman lays out the case that the FBI and CIA have been on Trump as a Russian asset all along, and that we shouldn't be surprised.

Basically, what I said yesterday, but with more evidence and documentation.

Not New

There's a story in the Times about the FBI opening an investigation into whether Donald Trump was/is a Russian asset.  There seems to be some breathless responses to this, but wasn't this always the question since 2016-17?  Haven't we been asking this question since the Republican Convention in 2016?

I guess it's just another case of the Dirty Filthy Liberal Bloggers being right years before the sensible center catches up.

To save some time:  Global warming is real and caused by human activity.  Wealth inequality is a threat to democratic governance.  Donald Trump is a criminal.

Try and catch up.

UPDATE: OK, maybe the big news is that the NSA, FBI and CIA all have copious wiretaps on Trump's communications with Russia and others.  That would, indeed, be a big f-ing deal.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Look, Trump's a combination of stupid, incurious, incompetent and uninformed.  So are many of the people around him. 

But they have so backed themselves into a corner over this Wall bullshit, that I suppose the only way around it is to declare a national emergency, lose in the courts and then run against the courts in 2020.

It's all deeply stupid, and Trump could've had wall money a year ago if he wasn't a impulsive racist pig surrounded by calculating racist pigs. 

There has to be a way out of this, and it won't be because Mitch McConnell cares about the will of the American people.

The Upside Down

Holy crap.

Read this and tell me if you can believe your eyes.

To some degree Carlson and even Coulter are simply diagnosing a problem that liberals and leftists have been screaming about for decades.  Unsurprisingly, they aren't really big on solutions.

But I think it's important that more and more voices are agreeing on the consensus that late 20th-early 21st century capitalism is failing a substantial number of Americans.  They may disagree on how to solve it, but the first step is admitting there is a problem.  Yes, they ignored the effects of poverty on minorities, and they are only paying attention because now it's white people who are suffering.  But who cares, as long as they begin to admit that African Americans are poor because of economic conditions.

Both Sides

I was going to write about the execrable analysis by the AP about how "both sides" bear responsibility for the government shutdown.

Instead, here's two different sides of the same institution.

Catholic charities are taking the lead in helping refugees on our southern border.

Meanwhile, a cardinal might finally be held accountable for the predation within the church.

I can't help but notice that it's the nuns helping migrants and old white men abusing their positions of power.  Completely coincidental, I'm sure.

Charlie Brown And The Football

Someone, years ago, suggested the image of Lucy holding out the football for Charlie Brown to kick, only for her to pull the ball away at the last second, as a metaphor for the media and conservatism.

Conservatism continually holds out the football of normalcy and then yanks it away from credulous media figures at the last second.

Basically that happened last night.  Trump tried to be normal, but in the end he pulled the football away, retreated into his lies and most of all came across as false and insincere.

And every network covered it.

Emergency

Greg Sargent lays out the reason why the medieval border wall is an "emergency."  It's not because it's needed, but in fact precisely because they can't prove that they need it.  Or rather, there is no national security or criminal enforcement reason that makes the wall necessary, only political realities.

There is some presumption that declaring a national emergency on the wall, then losing the case in courts (as Truman did during an actual war) would allow Trump a face-saving way out of his impasse.

Deeply stupid and deeply wrong.

Uh, What?

One thing Donald Trump promised to be was a "disrupter."

Judging by this Tucker Carlson piece, he could possibly scramble politics in ways we can't anticipate.  I'm not sure what a true right wing populism would look like in the US, but if we could move away from "more money for rich people," that would be nice.

One More Thought On Tlaib

The burbling nontroversy about Rashida Tlaib's comment "We are going to impeach the motherfucker" revolves on two axes.

First is motherfucker.  This is largely bullshit.  The idea that men and women don't use obscenities in everyday life is ridiculous. The policing of "tone" is among the laziest, worst ways of commenting on public discourse.  The counterargument that Trump has said worse is slightly off target.  The appropriate response is not to argue that Trump's language gives permission for Tlaib or others, it's that no one fucking cares, as long as you aren't doing on live TV during prime time.

The second makes a little more sense, but only a little.  This is the idea that Democrats can't "rush to judgment" on impeaching Trump.  The House must act like a sober jury from the imagination of responsible centrists.  This ignores the fact that we already have ample, ample evidence in the public record that Trump is guilty of numerous crimes, and that he is manifestly unfit for office.  We absolutely SHOULD impeach the motherfucker. 

There is an argument that impeaching Trump won't mean anything unless the Senate convicts and removes.  Maybe, but perhaps putting the onus on the Senate to defend Trump's criminality is its own reward.  Here's another idea.  You could impeach Trump on charges of campaign finance violations.  Senate acquits.  Impeach him on Russian collusion next. Senate acquits.  Then impeach him on emoluments.  Let the GOP Senate continue to defend the indefensible, up until November 2020.

The question becomes how the Never Trumpers will respond.  Right now, Democrats are siphoning off moderate, suburban women Republicans. You want to make them Democrats, so that you can win past 2020.  Once they identify as Democrats and not as Never Trump Republicans, you've got them.  So...maybe...that cohort wants to see a sober, impartial impeachment process, whereby the House Democrats act like regretful public servants rather than partisan warriors.  Maybe that's the thinking, and if so, it makes sense to slow-roll impeachment.

But it's going to be difficult in the next six months NOT to impeach, given what we already know about Trump.  Best get used to the idea.

Reporter Heal Thyself

Let's take three members of the incoming freshmen class of the new Congress.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a new brand of politics.  She is incredibly adept at social media, and at trolling her critics with both wit and substance.  As the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and with considerable reserves of charisma, she has become some sort of symbol for "the Left."  She will stake out certain positions to the left of her caucus, because that's what she was elected to do.  Dana Milbank's middle aged tut-tutting at her mild dissents is typical of the reportage on Democrats.  "They'd better be the grown-ups!  They'd better play politics by the old rules!"

Meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib said at a Move-On rally, that she was ready to "impeach the motherfucker."  The pearl clutching was extreme.  While some of this pearl clutching did exist with the many, many times Trump has violated certain social norms, let's recall that Tlaib said this at an event that was not broadcast live on TV (like calling certain countries "shitholes").  This represents a subtle double standard both on gender and partisanship.  Democrats are required to be the responsible party that doesn't blow stuff up and governs responsibly.

Meanwhile, America "elected" a vulgarian reality TV star.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney has taken the role of Jeff Flake. For this his rebuke comes not from the Dana Milbanks of the world, but from a fellow Republican Senator.  Romney is being reminded that the GOP cult of authoritarianism will not brook dissent.  The media lauded his heterodoxy, but the GOP won't stand for it.  When Democrats are heterodox, it's a sign of chaos.  "Dems in disarray!"

The reason is that the GOP has abandoned all pretense of normal governance, and the reporting class wants that normal governance (even as they secretly bask in the media floods of Trumpistan).  The Democrats represent "normal order" whereas the Republicans represent the dark hordes of barbarians hammering on the gates of the Madisonian system of government. 

The problem, of course, is that people are angry.  Everywhere.  About everything.  Bland centrism and quiet nostrums aren't really going to allow Democrats to hold on to the power they have just been given. 

People voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party because they were angry at that motherfucker.  Why can't people see that?  Why are we so attuned to white working class anger that we can't see the ocean of rage among women, people of color and the largest political party in the country?

The Media President

Jon Chait makes an important point about how the media covered Trump.  Trump was scrutinized, but not vetted in 2016.  That is to say, he threw scandal after scandal, damaging statement after damaging statement into the wind and watched as the media tried to keep up. No particular story could land, because they just kept coming.  Clinton, meanwhile, was subjected to a single, over-arching scandal: the damned emails. 

So, the cable nets in particular kept covering every new outrageous utterance of Trump, which amounted to free coverage.  Trump, however, had cemented himself in the public imagination via a fictionalized "reality show" as a successful billionaire.  Those claims were briefly examined - mainly by David Farentholdt - but were dropped in favor of whatever outrage Trump visited upon civility.  Those outrages served to burnish his "maverick" credibility and "owning the libs" persona, and his servile followers trusted in the "billionaire" businessman who never actually existed.

Trump was a celebrity, playing by celebrity rules.  He never underwent the rigorous vetting that takes place over a long public career.  Cory Booker will need to explain his closeness to Wall Street.  It wasn't a liability running in NJ, but it will be in a national race.  Elizabeth Warren already stepped in it with the DNA testing.  John Kerry had to explain contradictory votes in ways that Trump never did.  Trump was always Trump, and that required no explanation.

Trump will now be vetted in ways that he never has been before. But tearing down the persona he created over several decades will be difficult, if not impossible, for those who dearly want to believe that persona that they voted for was real.

Out Of The Impasse

Quite a few people are weighing in on the politics of the wall.  This has always been easier than covering actual policy, because it's primarily "this is my opinion and why I think I'm right" rather than digging into things like how much the wall will cost in real terms, the engineering hurdles, the lost opportunities to solve other problems.  Horse race journalism is easy, especially when you are talking about a hypothetical future horse race.

Anyway, the shutdown can't continue forever. How do we get out of this?

Last year (or was it 2017?) there was a package deal that would've given wall funding in return for a DREAM Act.  Trump vetoed it, because of Stephen Miller and Fox News, but it could be the only way to get the petulant baby-in-chief to sign something. 

Can Democrats negotiate that outcome with much of their base uninterested in giving Trump anything?  I doubt it.  It would probably be worth it as a political trade-off, but that's not where our politics are right now.

Oxymorons

Jon Chait is a Liberal.  As such, he gets slagged a lot by the online Left, and some of it is deserved, because Chait likes to troll them every once in a while.

But there are few better critics of "mainstream conservatives" than Chait.  His takedown of how Conservative Ethics is an Oxymoron is excellent.  But this is not something that is new or unique to Trumpistan.  There has always been an authoritarian streak in conservatism.  Even so-called Burkean conservatism has a reflexive respect for established norms, rules and traditions.  From there, it's a short walk to "follow the leader." 

And "follow the leader" is pretty much the modern GOP in a nutshell. The fact that their current leader is an immoral criminal with the intellect of an angry badger isn't an accident.  Trump represents the average Republican voter, rage-drunk on the mendacity of Fox News.  So there is a natural confluence between the leader and the lead in conservatism.  Stepping outside that stream is dangerous to your political health.  Just ask the retiring cowards, Jeff Flake and Bob Corker. The GOP has become a fear fueled id, and Trump is the personification of it.  Your nice aunt who thought Dubya was a really nice man and tried his best...she may tut tut at Trump's name, but in the end, she will fall in line behind the leader.

This soft authoritarianism is deeply rooted in one political party.  Don't believe me?  Watch the coming cannibalism of the Democratic primary. Visit Twitter for the incessant warring between the Bernie Bros and the Clintonistas.  The left of center party has ALWAYS been fractious and ungovernable.  When the Republican was roughly left of center during the Gilded Age (at least in comparison to Democrats), they were constantly riven by factions.  Dissension and factionalism are hallmarks of liberal politics.  Toeing the line and following the leader are the hallmarks of conservative politics. 

We have created an conservative ecosystem, however, that is so divorced from reality, that you have the authors Chait describes above who can't acknowledge the extraordinary moral failings of Donald Trump.  How can you be an ethicist and look at Trump - his criminality, his lying, his selfishness, his racism, his sexism - and not see a human sewer?

Because you're a conservative.  And he's your leader.

These people should not be anywhere the levers of power.

Greetings From Ultima Thule

Apparently, the little green men there can't believe we elected Trump either.