Monday, April 10, 2017
What The Fact?
So I read the WaPo's fact check of Susan Rice's claim - and the Obama administration's claims in general - about the removal of chemical weapons from Syria. Basically, they engaged in careful parsing of their words to spin their agreement in the best possible light.
The agreement pulled out the "known" chemical weapons, while leaving some hidden weapons in place. That's what Rice said. As with so many things in Syria, there were simply no good options. The negotiated settlement probably got rid of more chemical weapons than strikes would have. Certainly, they got rid of more chemical weapons that Trump's rubble bouncing last week did. That's what Rice said.
Nevertheless, in a blatant case of Both Sides, the statement was given "Four Pinocchios." Basically, they took Rice's spin and said it was a blatant lie, even though it was factually accurate within the parsed limits of the language. They equated measured spin with the daily blatant bullshit spewing from the White House.
This is why we can't have nice things.
The agreement pulled out the "known" chemical weapons, while leaving some hidden weapons in place. That's what Rice said. As with so many things in Syria, there were simply no good options. The negotiated settlement probably got rid of more chemical weapons than strikes would have. Certainly, they got rid of more chemical weapons that Trump's rubble bouncing last week did. That's what Rice said.
Nevertheless, in a blatant case of Both Sides, the statement was given "Four Pinocchios." Basically, they took Rice's spin and said it was a blatant lie, even though it was factually accurate within the parsed limits of the language. They equated measured spin with the daily blatant bullshit spewing from the White House.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Much Ado About Nothing
As the Syrian missile strikes come clearer, what is obvious is that these strikes did jack shit. We warned Russia, who warned Syria. No military assets seemed harmed. And how is it that we dropped over 25 tons of explosive munitions on an airfield and it's already operational again?
As I said, the strikes were probably necessary. However, Trump needs to "win" at all costs. It seems pretty clear we made some rubble bounce, but unless we see some shift in Syrian behavior, this was "security theater" again.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Game Of The Thrones
Josh Marshall has a nice piece on the palace intrigue surrounding Joffrey Trumpratheon, First of his Name.
I thought the strikes on Syria were proportionate and possibly even necessary. Trump is so erratic, you had to show you mean to stand by your red lines.
The part I didn't like was the sickening way some media figures - including Fareed Zakaria, who should know better - felt that bombing the shit out of an airfield was Trump's "presidential" moment. There is an overwhelming impulse on the part of the political press to normalize Trump. They have been waiting for Trump to "pivot" for over a year now.
Trump is never going to be normal. He's a 70 year old walking collection of pathologies and poor character traits; this is who he is. But if Kushner and the "Jewish Banking Conspiracy" (Marshall's term) succeeds in overthrowing Steve Bannon, we will once again here how Trump is "growing into the office" and "pivoting to the center."
And then 24 hours later, he will start a trade war with Bermuda over some misbegotten tweet.
I thought the strikes on Syria were proportionate and possibly even necessary. Trump is so erratic, you had to show you mean to stand by your red lines.
The part I didn't like was the sickening way some media figures - including Fareed Zakaria, who should know better - felt that bombing the shit out of an airfield was Trump's "presidential" moment. There is an overwhelming impulse on the part of the political press to normalize Trump. They have been waiting for Trump to "pivot" for over a year now.
Trump is never going to be normal. He's a 70 year old walking collection of pathologies and poor character traits; this is who he is. But if Kushner and the "Jewish Banking Conspiracy" (Marshall's term) succeeds in overthrowing Steve Bannon, we will once again here how Trump is "growing into the office" and "pivoting to the center."
And then 24 hours later, he will start a trade war with Bermuda over some misbegotten tweet.
Friday, April 7, 2017
Ugh
Left wing groups are mobilizing to primary Democrats who aren't sufficiently hostile to Trump's bombing campaign in Syria.
Politically, you're setting yourself up to be categorized as objectively pro-Assad. Great job.
I warrant when the polling comes out, these strikes will be seen pretty positively by everyone but the more pacifist Left. This is why a lot of rural Americans feel you have nothing to say to them.
Politically, you're setting yourself up to be categorized as objectively pro-Assad. Great job.
I warrant when the polling comes out, these strikes will be seen pretty positively by everyone but the more pacifist Left. This is why a lot of rural Americans feel you have nothing to say to them.
Serious
There isn't much to argue against what Martin Longman says here.
Was striking the Assad regime appropriate after the chemical weapons attack? Probably. Should it have been done in 2013? Maybe, though Obama was able to negotiate away most of the Syrian weapons stockpiles. The problem is that chemical weapons are cheap and easy to make, so getting rid of them once doesn't mean you've gotten rid of them for good.
The problem is that we have no Syrian policy and likely there is no Syrian policy to have. Aside from the Kurds, there is no group in this conflict who we can call our friends. Not even Turkey, frankly, who have embarked on an authoritarian course and seem to tolerate the worst elements of the Syrian Civil War.
There is no way you can arrive at a solution to this mess that does not involve a serious deus ex machina. Getting rid of Assad won't stop the factional fighting, keeping Assad will insure there is never any peace. Conquering ISIS would only shift the belligerence to Kurds vs. Baghdad vs. Damascus vs the Rebels.
The bombing of the Syrian airbase feels very much like Dealing With Dictators 101: The Lesson of Munich. Assad can't be deterred, goes the reasoning, so he must be smacked around a little. This is true to a degree. Dictators often only listen to the persuasion of force. Assad's regime is monstrous.
I can't bring myself to criticize this decision, unless I want to make petty (but accurate) points about Trump's hypocrisy.
The real issues are twofold: What comes next for Syria and what comes next for the Trump Administration?
In Syria, as I noted, there are no good solutions, barring a miracle. Waiting for miracles is a poor strategic plan. What do we do next? What if Assad launches a chemical attack on Kurdish forces and kills an American serviceman? We've already upped our ground forces supporting the anti-ISIS coalition, what happens if we get dragged into the Syrian war even more? This episode proves that Trump is both impulsive and easily manipulated. These actions go against what Trump was saying o the campaign trail, and some of his supporters are furious. These actions were prompted by pictures of victims of the attacks. But there have been previous pictures that left him unmoved What changed?
There are Hawks in Trump's cabinet, including his SecDef and NatSec adviser. These are the guys who "want to take the gloves off." The result of this has been that the US has increased the number of civilian casualties we are creating with airstrikes. I guess killing civilians with cluster bombs is more humane than killing them with sarin gas? Clearly, the Hawks used these images to get Trump to backtrack on his previous position on Assad.
If he's that easily manipulated once, he can be again.
Secondly, I imagine Trump will see a bump in his poll numbers for being "strong." Obama rightly understood that "being strong" was often a quick high. And like a nice hit of meth, it made you feel good for a moment, but it often led to both negative repercussions in the long run, as you needed to get your fix.
Trump's presidency is historically unpopular. That unpopularity spreads across the political spectrum. These attacks will shore up some support among GOP Hawks and his numbers will bump upwards a little. If he notices this, he will reach for this literal weapon every time his numbers sag. We have seen the militarization of our foreign policy establishment, but now we are on the verge of militarizing our domestic politics. This is a critical step in the creeping authoritarianism that Trump represents.
Or maybe not.
The strikes on Syria were - if not a good idea - not a bad idea. There is a logic to them, though the represent exactly the DC Playbook that Obama worked to resist for 8 years. Like saving your Closer for the 9th inning is the "Book" in baseball, it's a decision that usually isn't second guessed, except by people who are thinking more creatively. You rarely catch shit for following "the Book."
The YUUUGE question is what comes next. My first guess is that nothing happens. Trump gets simultaneously distracted and pleased with himself for his poll numbers creeping upwards.
But keep an eye on the people beating the war drums. And keep an eye on Trump when his poll numbers start to slip again.
This was McMaster's play, not Bannon's. It's pretty clear the Hawks are back in charge. Let's see what that means in the long run.
Was striking the Assad regime appropriate after the chemical weapons attack? Probably. Should it have been done in 2013? Maybe, though Obama was able to negotiate away most of the Syrian weapons stockpiles. The problem is that chemical weapons are cheap and easy to make, so getting rid of them once doesn't mean you've gotten rid of them for good.
The problem is that we have no Syrian policy and likely there is no Syrian policy to have. Aside from the Kurds, there is no group in this conflict who we can call our friends. Not even Turkey, frankly, who have embarked on an authoritarian course and seem to tolerate the worst elements of the Syrian Civil War.
There is no way you can arrive at a solution to this mess that does not involve a serious deus ex machina. Getting rid of Assad won't stop the factional fighting, keeping Assad will insure there is never any peace. Conquering ISIS would only shift the belligerence to Kurds vs. Baghdad vs. Damascus vs the Rebels.
The bombing of the Syrian airbase feels very much like Dealing With Dictators 101: The Lesson of Munich. Assad can't be deterred, goes the reasoning, so he must be smacked around a little. This is true to a degree. Dictators often only listen to the persuasion of force. Assad's regime is monstrous.
I can't bring myself to criticize this decision, unless I want to make petty (but accurate) points about Trump's hypocrisy.
The real issues are twofold: What comes next for Syria and what comes next for the Trump Administration?
In Syria, as I noted, there are no good solutions, barring a miracle. Waiting for miracles is a poor strategic plan. What do we do next? What if Assad launches a chemical attack on Kurdish forces and kills an American serviceman? We've already upped our ground forces supporting the anti-ISIS coalition, what happens if we get dragged into the Syrian war even more? This episode proves that Trump is both impulsive and easily manipulated. These actions go against what Trump was saying o the campaign trail, and some of his supporters are furious. These actions were prompted by pictures of victims of the attacks. But there have been previous pictures that left him unmoved What changed?
There are Hawks in Trump's cabinet, including his SecDef and NatSec adviser. These are the guys who "want to take the gloves off." The result of this has been that the US has increased the number of civilian casualties we are creating with airstrikes. I guess killing civilians with cluster bombs is more humane than killing them with sarin gas? Clearly, the Hawks used these images to get Trump to backtrack on his previous position on Assad.
If he's that easily manipulated once, he can be again.
Secondly, I imagine Trump will see a bump in his poll numbers for being "strong." Obama rightly understood that "being strong" was often a quick high. And like a nice hit of meth, it made you feel good for a moment, but it often led to both negative repercussions in the long run, as you needed to get your fix.
Trump's presidency is historically unpopular. That unpopularity spreads across the political spectrum. These attacks will shore up some support among GOP Hawks and his numbers will bump upwards a little. If he notices this, he will reach for this literal weapon every time his numbers sag. We have seen the militarization of our foreign policy establishment, but now we are on the verge of militarizing our domestic politics. This is a critical step in the creeping authoritarianism that Trump represents.
Or maybe not.
The strikes on Syria were - if not a good idea - not a bad idea. There is a logic to them, though the represent exactly the DC Playbook that Obama worked to resist for 8 years. Like saving your Closer for the 9th inning is the "Book" in baseball, it's a decision that usually isn't second guessed, except by people who are thinking more creatively. You rarely catch shit for following "the Book."
The YUUUGE question is what comes next. My first guess is that nothing happens. Trump gets simultaneously distracted and pleased with himself for his poll numbers creeping upwards.
But keep an eye on the people beating the war drums. And keep an eye on Trump when his poll numbers start to slip again.
This was McMaster's play, not Bannon's. It's pretty clear the Hawks are back in charge. Let's see what that means in the long run.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
The Ultimate Trumpism
Trump's assertion that he has had the "most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency" may be the most Trumpian utterance yet, as Jon Chait notes at the link above. His presidency has been an objective failure at everything, except executive order to destroy the regulatory state and now Neil Gorsuch. Legislatively, he's been a complete and utter failure.
And, yeah, he's only been president for 11 weeks.
Honestly. Is he non compos mentis?
And, yeah, he's only been president for 11 weeks.
Honestly. Is he non compos mentis?
Deep State Vs. Derp State
Josh Marshall is most likely right. After 100 chaotic days, the national security state - as typified by McMaster - is slowly regaining control of at least the foreign policy part of the Trump White House.
This makes one hopeful that we won't enter into any catastrophic wars by accident. If we do, it will be more by design...
This makes one hopeful that we won't enter into any catastrophic wars by accident. If we do, it will be more by design...
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Hoo Boy
There are actually people on the left of the environmental movement who decry the use of consumer pressure to change policy? I mean, that's an actual thing? This is Purity Politics at its most perverse.
Right now, the purchasing power of the Liberal Coastal Elites is probably as important or more so than the rule of law as promulgated through the Courts. It is absolutely toxic to be a business leader who embraces Trump. And it looks like consumer pressure could be the thing that takes down Bill O'Reilly. I'm not overly concerned about HOW that happens.
Right now, the purchasing power of the Liberal Coastal Elites is probably as important or more so than the rule of law as promulgated through the Courts. It is absolutely toxic to be a business leader who embraces Trump. And it looks like consumer pressure could be the thing that takes down Bill O'Reilly. I'm not overly concerned about HOW that happens.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
The Prestige
In a magic trick, the Prestige is the showmanship that goes around the "trick" to distract the audience and sell them on the trick.
These revelations about Susan Rice are an example of a Prestige. Rice did absolutely nothing wrong. Of course, she did nothing wrong in the Benghazi incident, but...BENGHAZI!11! We now have Rand Paul parroting these attacks, which will bounce around the Fox News Echo Chamber and create their own narrative in support of that which there is no support: Obama spied on Trump.
Once again, the test will be whether the media lets them get away with this shit.
These revelations about Susan Rice are an example of a Prestige. Rice did absolutely nothing wrong. Of course, she did nothing wrong in the Benghazi incident, but...BENGHAZI!11! We now have Rand Paul parroting these attacks, which will bounce around the Fox News Echo Chamber and create their own narrative in support of that which there is no support: Obama spied on Trump.
Once again, the test will be whether the media lets them get away with this shit.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Unmasked
Greg Sargent makes a fundamentally important point: Donald Trump is unpopular because his agenda is unpopular. He also makes the next important follow up point: Trump's agenda is basically the GOP/Paul Ryan agenda. Immiserating the poor is a fundamental position for much of the GOP. It turns out most people aren't all that into cutting government to the bone. Sure, you can find people for whom keeping America basically a white, Christian country overrides their economic self-interest, but as Scott Lemieux points out, white nationalism is a form of self-interest, too.
The thing is that Trump's governing coalition is in shambles and his electoral margin of victory was razor thin. I can't see any way that they can get an ACA repeal or tax reform through the Congress. They will likely be able to push through some horribly regressive tax cuts, but that's about it. That and Trump's efforts at massive deregulation.
The thing is, massive tax cuts for the rich and deregulation are really only popular with a very, very few Americans. Hating on brown people brings in a lot more. But not 50%.
The essential meanness, callousness and incompetence of the GOP has been largely shielded over the past decade by Democratic control of first the Congress, then the White House. As Democrats controlled the agenda from 2006-2010, they created policies that were disruptive - combined with the Little Depression of 2008. But they did tangible good for people. From 2008 onward, the GOP functioned solely as an opposition party. I saw an incredible stat that roughly 75% of the House GOP has not been part of a governing majority that controlled the White House. In effect, they never had to govern.
Obama was the animating force of the GOP resurgence. However, now that he is gone, the basic unpopularity of the GOP's active agenda is being exposed.
I know that policy rarely is important to voters. Sadly. But cruelty married to incompetence is not a very good recipe for electoral success.
The thing is that Trump's governing coalition is in shambles and his electoral margin of victory was razor thin. I can't see any way that they can get an ACA repeal or tax reform through the Congress. They will likely be able to push through some horribly regressive tax cuts, but that's about it. That and Trump's efforts at massive deregulation.
The thing is, massive tax cuts for the rich and deregulation are really only popular with a very, very few Americans. Hating on brown people brings in a lot more. But not 50%.
The essential meanness, callousness and incompetence of the GOP has been largely shielded over the past decade by Democratic control of first the Congress, then the White House. As Democrats controlled the agenda from 2006-2010, they created policies that were disruptive - combined with the Little Depression of 2008. But they did tangible good for people. From 2008 onward, the GOP functioned solely as an opposition party. I saw an incredible stat that roughly 75% of the House GOP has not been part of a governing majority that controlled the White House. In effect, they never had to govern.
Obama was the animating force of the GOP resurgence. However, now that he is gone, the basic unpopularity of the GOP's active agenda is being exposed.
I know that policy rarely is important to voters. Sadly. But cruelty married to incompetence is not a very good recipe for electoral success.
The Shadow Governance Problem
Barack Obama did a lot of laudable things with executive orders that never really got a lot of play. Trump is issuing a lot of executive orders, that I would not describe in any way shape or form as laudable.
But executive orders exist in the shadows. They don't have the impact of legislative victories. Obama at least had his first two years in office to win big victories. Trump doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.
And it's showing up in the polls.
But executive orders exist in the shadows. They don't have the impact of legislative victories. Obama at least had his first two years in office to win big victories. Trump doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.
And it's showing up in the polls.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
The Wall
WaPo has an article about how Democrats look to be in a more favorable position come government shutdown and budget time. TL;DR: The Freedumb Caucus is unlikely to support the Trump budget or a continuing resolution to keep the government open. So in order to keep the government working DESPITE HAVING CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY, the GOP will have to reach out for Democratic votes.
This is, in part, the continuation of the Republican Civil War, and the assumption - which could very well be false - is that it will continue into the budget-writing process. There could also be the same dynamic with health care, in that moderate Republicans can't sign off on Trump's ridiculously draconian budget either.
One thing that stood out was the double-edged sword that Democrats are faced with. The left wing of the party wants a McConnell-style Party of No strategy that denies the Republicans ANY victories and forces crises on a government that seems ill prepared to handle them.
That's not necessarily a bad strategy.
However, it's a strategy that has two big flaws. The first is that Democrats believe in good governance. McConnell could make the government fail, because the GOP message is that government is a bad thing and it fails all the time. You muddle the message of "We can make government work" if you are helping to make government fail. Maybe.
The second seems to be where do you draw the negotiation line? The article lists a few things that Democrats will absolutely insist on in any budget that has their fingerprints on it. Planned Parenthood is one, and that's probably smart, because funding PP is actually pretty popular outside of the hard core anti-abortion crowd.
The big fight, it seems, will be over the defense budget and the border wall. Democrats have said that a huge increase in defense spending at the expense of needed programs across the board is a non-starter. Frankly, many Republicans agree. Except for the maroons in the Freedumb Caucus, most GOP Congressmembers can agree that, say, the CDC is a good thing to fund. And let's not kill Big Bird while we are at it. Again, they are wrestling with the reality of what their campaign rhetoric has been versus the reality of governing.
Presumably this means that they can slash Trump's defense budget and re-apportion money to needed programs. Which brings us to the Wall.
The Wall looks like is is becoming a proxy for all of Trump's agenda. He's not going to reform health care (Who knew it could be so complicated?); he's not going to be able to reform the tax code, which is more complicated than health care. That leaves that "f%^#ing wall" to quote Vicente Fox.
The Wall has an atavistic hold on Trump supporters. During his rallies, whenever Trump felt the crowd slipping away from him, he would pivot to talk about the Wall <applause> and how Mexico would pay for it <wild applause>. The Wall was the great symbol of how Trump would be their hero against those murky brown hordes pouring over the border, which is why Cleetus Down The Road is abusing the Oxycontin. Or something. Hating on the Mexicans was less about over racism - although it was overt racism - and more about finding something or someone to blame for the fact that Cleetus Down The Road is hooked on Oxycontin and Mabel is taking disability, even though she's fine and all the stores that I went to when I was growing up are closing down and the jobs are gone, and Junior is still at home and... Well, basically the hollowing out of small town America.
The fact that this hollowing out is very real, doesn't mean that Mexicans are to blame. In fact, time and again small town people are horrified when ICE agents show up and grab THEIR Mexicans. The Wall was not about taking Jorge back to Mexico, it was about stopping the idea of "bad hombres" who are always somewhere else doing godawful things.
For Trump and Trump supporters, the Wall is everything. Trump has to realize at some level that retreating from the Wall is not an option. It would be the ultimate betrayal of the 37% who still think he's doing a good job.
From the Democrats point of view, therefore, beating Trump on the Wall would be awesome. Many of the saner members of the GOP are not interested in spending billions on the 2nd century BCE technology of a wall. Budgets are about priorities, and it's not their priority. It's a colossal waste of money.
And yet....
That f*&^ing wall is indeed really popular. For people who don't see why we DON'T have a wall, opposing a wall is just PC bullshit. The Wall is popular because walls are easy to understand.
Democrats don't need to win rural districts, necessarily. They just need to lose them by closer margins. Making the Wall the centerpiece of your resistance to Trump risks cementing those voters to him. Resist the Wall be all means, but don't make THAT the rhetorical centerpiece of your resistance. Focus on how the GOP budget will gut assistance to those communities.
I am not, not have I ever been a Sandernista. But at some point Democrats need to start speaking the language of class over the language of race, ethnicity and gender. The Wall is a race and ethnicity touchstone. Democrats should absolutely oppose it. But opposing the wall shouldn't be the focal point. It should be preserving needed social programs like public health and addiction services or environmental protections. Oppose the Wall quietly (except on Univision and Telemundo), while speaking an inclusive language of class.
That's how you create a wave in 2018 and 2020.
This is, in part, the continuation of the Republican Civil War, and the assumption - which could very well be false - is that it will continue into the budget-writing process. There could also be the same dynamic with health care, in that moderate Republicans can't sign off on Trump's ridiculously draconian budget either.
One thing that stood out was the double-edged sword that Democrats are faced with. The left wing of the party wants a McConnell-style Party of No strategy that denies the Republicans ANY victories and forces crises on a government that seems ill prepared to handle them.
That's not necessarily a bad strategy.
However, it's a strategy that has two big flaws. The first is that Democrats believe in good governance. McConnell could make the government fail, because the GOP message is that government is a bad thing and it fails all the time. You muddle the message of "We can make government work" if you are helping to make government fail. Maybe.
The second seems to be where do you draw the negotiation line? The article lists a few things that Democrats will absolutely insist on in any budget that has their fingerprints on it. Planned Parenthood is one, and that's probably smart, because funding PP is actually pretty popular outside of the hard core anti-abortion crowd.
The big fight, it seems, will be over the defense budget and the border wall. Democrats have said that a huge increase in defense spending at the expense of needed programs across the board is a non-starter. Frankly, many Republicans agree. Except for the maroons in the Freedumb Caucus, most GOP Congressmembers can agree that, say, the CDC is a good thing to fund. And let's not kill Big Bird while we are at it. Again, they are wrestling with the reality of what their campaign rhetoric has been versus the reality of governing.
Presumably this means that they can slash Trump's defense budget and re-apportion money to needed programs. Which brings us to the Wall.
The Wall looks like is is becoming a proxy for all of Trump's agenda. He's not going to reform health care (Who knew it could be so complicated?); he's not going to be able to reform the tax code, which is more complicated than health care. That leaves that "f%^#ing wall" to quote Vicente Fox.
The Wall has an atavistic hold on Trump supporters. During his rallies, whenever Trump felt the crowd slipping away from him, he would pivot to talk about the Wall <applause> and how Mexico would pay for it <wild applause>. The Wall was the great symbol of how Trump would be their hero against those murky brown hordes pouring over the border, which is why Cleetus Down The Road is abusing the Oxycontin. Or something. Hating on the Mexicans was less about over racism - although it was overt racism - and more about finding something or someone to blame for the fact that Cleetus Down The Road is hooked on Oxycontin and Mabel is taking disability, even though she's fine and all the stores that I went to when I was growing up are closing down and the jobs are gone, and Junior is still at home and... Well, basically the hollowing out of small town America.
The fact that this hollowing out is very real, doesn't mean that Mexicans are to blame. In fact, time and again small town people are horrified when ICE agents show up and grab THEIR Mexicans. The Wall was not about taking Jorge back to Mexico, it was about stopping the idea of "bad hombres" who are always somewhere else doing godawful things.
For Trump and Trump supporters, the Wall is everything. Trump has to realize at some level that retreating from the Wall is not an option. It would be the ultimate betrayal of the 37% who still think he's doing a good job.
From the Democrats point of view, therefore, beating Trump on the Wall would be awesome. Many of the saner members of the GOP are not interested in spending billions on the 2nd century BCE technology of a wall. Budgets are about priorities, and it's not their priority. It's a colossal waste of money.
And yet....
That f*&^ing wall is indeed really popular. For people who don't see why we DON'T have a wall, opposing a wall is just PC bullshit. The Wall is popular because walls are easy to understand.
Democrats don't need to win rural districts, necessarily. They just need to lose them by closer margins. Making the Wall the centerpiece of your resistance to Trump risks cementing those voters to him. Resist the Wall be all means, but don't make THAT the rhetorical centerpiece of your resistance. Focus on how the GOP budget will gut assistance to those communities.
I am not, not have I ever been a Sandernista. But at some point Democrats need to start speaking the language of class over the language of race, ethnicity and gender. The Wall is a race and ethnicity touchstone. Democrats should absolutely oppose it. But opposing the wall shouldn't be the focal point. It should be preserving needed social programs like public health and addiction services or environmental protections. Oppose the Wall quietly (except on Univision and Telemundo), while speaking an inclusive language of class.
That's how you create a wave in 2018 and 2020.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Who Are These People?
At what point do we finally agree to agree that "powerful conservative" really just means "raving psychopath"?
Draining The Swamp
There is little doubt that Trump is a populist, and much of his appeal to his WWC base was his stated desire to "take on" elites in DC.
Recent revelations about the people surrounding Trump show that Trump may have run as a populist, but he's governing as exactly the person Democrats said he was: a plutocrat who has nothing in common with the people who voted for him but the shared contempt for certain groups of people.
The GOP as a whole has demonstrated - once again - that their primary function in DC is to funnel money and power upwards to the 1%. The decision to allow telecoms to sell consumer data is just bizarre politics. Who supports this? The American Shit Sandwich Act that the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver from Wisconsin puked up was a terrible, terrible bill. Who supports this? The coming deficit-financed tax cuts for the 1%...Who supports this?
Charlie Pierce famously contrasted the Occupy movement with the Tea Party by saying that at least Occupy was screaming at the right buildings. There is a fair amount of evidence that those rural WWC voters supported Trump in a bizarre "only Nixon can go to China" gambit that only a guy like Trump - already rich and used to buying influence - could "drain the swamp" and remove those who are rich and buy influence.
Trump's continued collapse in the polls is at least in part - if not in whole - some of his supporters coming to grips with the fact that they have been conned. The health care debate stripped the scales from at least some of their eyes. The question everyone, but especially Democrats, should be asking is how low can Trump go? It's not even three months into his presidency. So far he has treated us to the Russia scandal, a failed travel ban, a failed health care plan and a massive deregulation plan.
Democrats and the press have focused mostly on the first three elements of that agenda: Trump's scandals and incompetence. At some point, they need to pivot and focus on what he's actually accomplished, as typified by rolling back the regulations on coal ash and worker protections and financial regulations and internet privacy. This is going to be at least two years of unparalleled corporate giveaways. Trump exists to be a conduit of government largesse to the 1%, including, of course, his own family.
Democrats need to start constructing this case and repeating it over and over again. The Russia Scandal should probably be re-sold as Trump selling out America to benefit wealthy Russian and American investors (which it probably is) rather than a treasonous conspiracy (which it probably isn't).
The key to creating wave elections in 2018 and 2020 is to reshape the debate over Trump's faux populism. He and the GOP are not on your side, Bubba. That HAS to be the message. Right now, there is so much noise surrounding Trump it's tough to pick out just one chord.
Time to create a chorus.
Recent revelations about the people surrounding Trump show that Trump may have run as a populist, but he's governing as exactly the person Democrats said he was: a plutocrat who has nothing in common with the people who voted for him but the shared contempt for certain groups of people.
The GOP as a whole has demonstrated - once again - that their primary function in DC is to funnel money and power upwards to the 1%. The decision to allow telecoms to sell consumer data is just bizarre politics. Who supports this? The American Shit Sandwich Act that the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver from Wisconsin puked up was a terrible, terrible bill. Who supports this? The coming deficit-financed tax cuts for the 1%...Who supports this?
Charlie Pierce famously contrasted the Occupy movement with the Tea Party by saying that at least Occupy was screaming at the right buildings. There is a fair amount of evidence that those rural WWC voters supported Trump in a bizarre "only Nixon can go to China" gambit that only a guy like Trump - already rich and used to buying influence - could "drain the swamp" and remove those who are rich and buy influence.
Trump's continued collapse in the polls is at least in part - if not in whole - some of his supporters coming to grips with the fact that they have been conned. The health care debate stripped the scales from at least some of their eyes. The question everyone, but especially Democrats, should be asking is how low can Trump go? It's not even three months into his presidency. So far he has treated us to the Russia scandal, a failed travel ban, a failed health care plan and a massive deregulation plan.
Democrats and the press have focused mostly on the first three elements of that agenda: Trump's scandals and incompetence. At some point, they need to pivot and focus on what he's actually accomplished, as typified by rolling back the regulations on coal ash and worker protections and financial regulations and internet privacy. This is going to be at least two years of unparalleled corporate giveaways. Trump exists to be a conduit of government largesse to the 1%, including, of course, his own family.
Democrats need to start constructing this case and repeating it over and over again. The Russia Scandal should probably be re-sold as Trump selling out America to benefit wealthy Russian and American investors (which it probably is) rather than a treasonous conspiracy (which it probably isn't).
The key to creating wave elections in 2018 and 2020 is to reshape the debate over Trump's faux populism. He and the GOP are not on your side, Bubba. That HAS to be the message. Right now, there is so much noise surrounding Trump it's tough to pick out just one chord.
Time to create a chorus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)