Same Trump, Different Circumstances

"Responding to a 'border emergency' by urging the beginning of planning for a 15-year civil engineering project," David Frum tweets, is "rather like saying 'My house is burning! Time to begin the process of calling for design proposals for a new fire station.'"

And so President Trump's address to the nation Tuesday night began and ended with a period or semi-colon rather than with his customary exclamation point, more of a hostage tape than a call for dramatic action.

Frum's colleague at The Atlantic, David A. Graham recognized

The speech was bewildering. Was this stiff oration given by the same man who captured the nation’s attention—and elicited outrage—with his descent down a gold escalator in June 2015, his vow that “I alone can fix it” in summer 2016, or his invocation of “American carnage” in January 2017? It’s hard to believe that master showman was the same person who sat behind the Resolute Desk on Tuesday.

It is the same person whom people misinterpret- Republicans, for strategic advantage- as a "counter-puncher. However, Donald Trump is a puncher, not a counter-puncher.

When he walked down the escalator in June, 2015, he was acting, in contrast both to being genuine and to reacting.  He was brash and bold, promising to help schools, veterans, the middle class, the elderly, Israel and bring back "peace through strength."

Tuesday night, however, Trump was practically a wounded puppy because he is losing.  He knows he does not hold a winning hand, having given up leverage when he boasted that he would be "proud" to shut down the federal government. Tweeting prior to the President's speech, Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono observed "the only crisis that exists is the one he manufactured and the only wall that's real is the one closing in on him."

That's an exaggeration, but only a slight one. The President, having predicted the speech "is not going to change a damn thing," apparently relented because his arm was twisted by communications aides Bill Shine, Sarah H. Sanders, and Kellyanne F. Conway (weakness, as usual).

He'll get back his mojo, of course, for a while. Still, with the walls evidently closing in on him, Democrats should take notice that Trump has been tamed- at least temporarily- and that attempting to cajole, pacify, or appease him will only backfire.

Share |

Feeling Good, Proud, Happy, And United

Adam Serwer of The Atlantic has written "taking joy.... in their shared laughter at the suffering of others"

is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.

Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.

Impressively, Serwer wrote that in early October, in the midst of the Brett Kavanaugh/Christine Blasey Ford controversy. It would be much easier today. From Marianna, Florida on the impact of the Trump Shutdown on the rural, conservative and Republican Panhandle, the New  York Times' Patricia Mazzei reports

Crystal Minton, accompanied her fiancé to a friend’s house to help clear the remnants of a metal roof mangled by the hurricane. Ms. Minton, a 38-year-old secretary, said she had obtained permission from the warden to put off her Mississippi duty until early February because she is a single mother caring for disabled parents. Her fiancé plans to take vacation days to look after Ms. Minton’s 7-year-old twins once she has to go to work.

The shutdown on top of the hurricane has caused Ms. Minton to rethink a lot of things.

“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting. Obviously, Ms. Minton wishes President Trump would hurt "the people he needs to be hurting."

However, I thought he was going to do good things. Because he isn't hurting the people he needs to be hurting, he could not possibly be doing "good things."

And that's one of the reasons Katy Tur, in the video below, is dead wrong, on at least two counts. Tur believes Trump needs supporters who voted for him to "get things done." However, he needs those people less than he needs hard-core Republicans, who will let their Senators know what their political future will look like if they do not stand by their man.

Moreover, notwithstanding Tur's perception, Trump needs to produce "The Wall," however he's able to define a wall.  He needs it not only because his supporters oppose illegal immigration, and most of them, legal immigration.

It is- or would be- a physical manifestation of what they want. Barring from the country individuals who might need social services is a minor benefit. Causing them pain is the major advantage, and the reason (notwithstanding Tur's notion) that "they will let him get away with anything."

A wall may or may not benefit the USA. But it certainly would hurt Mexico.  "Who's gonna topay for the wall?" "Mexico," his exuberant fans would yell back at him. Mexico and Mexicans will have to pay and suck it up.

Steve M understands that the President

wants the fight and the wall. What he wants is to win the fight, which means Democrats lose, and lose badly. ..

Trump can't act in a way that would bring shame upon himself in the eyes of the people he most wants to please (the GOP base, Sean Hannity, etc.). They expect him not to cede anything to Democrats -- and Trump assumes they expect him, the master of the deal, to cut a deal in which he wins everything and the other side wins nothing.

It's not win-win for Trump and most of his supporters. It's not even "tails we win, heads you lose." They will be happy with "you lose."

Share |

This Blog Is 37% Better Than Any Other.

A former tennis great, probably not a fan of Donald J. Trump:

I can tell you all this for sure- whatever ridiculous propaganda we were fed in then Czechoslovakia, which was mandated by Soviet Union- pales next to the lies being told and repeated by trump and his ilk. I am not kidding…
trump truly trumps the communists. And that’s not easy

— Martina Navratilova (@Martina) January 8, 2019

She maintains also that fewer people believed the propaganda of the Prague regime than that of the Washington, D.C. regime.

That's easy to understand because Trump is good.... very, very good.

Answer honestly: if a casual friend told you that Miami Beach yesterday experienced its lowest minimum temperature on record, you might not believe her. If, however, she told you that yesterday it had its lowest ever temperature at 34 degrees, you probably would believe her.

In reality, neither is accurate because the temperature fell only to 60 degrees yesterday in Miami Beach and the lowest ever recorded is 32degrees.

When lying, go big. Lie with statistics because people will be more likely to believe an individual who comes up with statistics to back up his assertions, whereupon he sounds authoritative. So on Sunday the President tweeted

We are working hard at the Border, but we need a WALL! In 2018, 1.7 million pounds of narcotics seized, 17,000 adults arrested with criminal records, and 6000 gang members, including MS-13, apprehended. A big Human Trafficking problem.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2019

The Washington Post's Phillip Bump notes that the 6,000 figure cited by the Department of Human Services pertained to

gang members (“including MS-13”) apprehended at the border — and removed from the country by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to a Homeland Security spokesman, about 5,000 of those 6,000 gang member arrests/apprehensions happened somewhere besides the southern border. Only 1,019 were apprehended at the southern border, about a fifth of them at designated ports of entry.

The Post's Fact Checker found

In the 11-month period through August 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 16,831 people convicted of crimes in the United States or abroad, but 63 percent of them showed up at ports of entry. That includes airport travelers, not just people “trying to get across the border.”

Another WaPo Fact Checker has observed

The president also simply invents faux facts. He repeatedly said U.S. Steel is building six to eight new steel plants, but that’s not true. He said that as president, Obama gave citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during the nuclear-deal negotiations, but that’s false. Over and over, Trump claimed that the Uzbekistan-born man who in 2017 was accused of killing eight people with a pickup truck in New York brought two dozen relatives to the United States through “chain migration.” The real number is zero.

Approximately 35 years ago, Steve Miller sang "Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah. Some people call me the gangster of love. Some people call me Maurice..." Some people call Donald Trump "crazy," some call him "stupid," some call him "impulsive."  There may be a little of each, but there is a lot of devious.

Share |

Disturbing Reality

Although mainstream media during the presidential campaign often quoted Donald J. Trump condemning immigration, it rarely acknowledged that voters perceived a dramatic difference between the two parties on the issue of ethnicity generally. In a piece carried a few days before being named a New York Times columnist, Slate's Jamelle Bouie quoted two impolite, politically incorrect, honest political scientists who had noted

In 2016, the presidential campaign focused on issues tied to racial, ethnic, and religious identities and attitudes. The two candidates took very different positions on those issues, and voters perceived those differences. People’s attitudes on these issues were then ‘activated’ as decision-making criteria and became even more strongly associated with white voters’ preference for Clinton or Trump.

Voters were aware of this in 2008 (and earlier). However, as Bouie notes, Barack

Obama won a portion of whites with negative views of blacks. The reason has everything to do with the campaigns. Obama didn’t emphasize race or speak explicitly on racial issues. Neither did Mitt Romney. Race mattered, but white racial views—and white identity—weren’t as crucial to the outcome.

Irony, then, rears its ugly head.  Bouie realizes

After embracing the Republican congressional agenda, Trump can’t run on building infrastructure and protecting retirement programs. But he still has racism. And another campaign of racial fear and resentment—against another Democrat trying to shore up their racial justice bona fides—sets up another election where white voters are polarized along their racial views. This doesn’t mean the presidency is out of reach for Democrats—the midterm elections show there are other Americans to mobilize and win—but the “Obama-to-Trump” voters might be gone from the party for good.

One possible implication of all of this is that black candidates may have the strategic advantage in the Democratic primary. Not because they’ll automatically win black voters, but because they won’t have to demonstrate the same social solidarity. Like Obama, they can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the president’s racism rather than vocalizing it and allowing them space to focus on economic messaging without triggering the cycle of polarization that Clinton experienced.

Although this is insightful, and probably reflects reality, a reasonable person can be forgiven for wondering why black Democratic presidential candidates "can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the president's racism rather than vocalizing it...." "White candidates," Bouie understands, "will face the additional task of demonstrating social solidarity—of showing that they understand the problems of racism and discrimination and empathize with the victims."

We can recognize a double standard rather than condoning it.  

News flash: a Democrat cannot run on the national stage circa 2016-2020 without at least rhetorically understanding the problems of racism, discrimination, and victimization of minorities  (video below from Mischief Night, 2015).. There is no Democrat who has advocated building a wall between Mexico and the USA, maintaining "mass incarceration," rolling back any of the gains made by minorities in the country, or even suggested that a police officer who has shot an African-American may have done so unavoidably. None.

The news media bears partial- but not full-blame.  As Bouie notes (with his quote marks), Hillary Clinton emphasized "structural racism" and "implicit bias," met with Black Lives Matter, described "police violence" as a force that "terrorizes communities," and in other ways stressed her "solidarity" (my quote marks) with marginalized groups. The candidate she defeated, Bernie Sanders, now also is expected to prove his racial bona fides.

The media should not give to any candidate based on the inherited characteristic of race a pass on the biggest issue(s) in the last presidential election, as Bouie understands is likely. Doing so constitutes privilege- and it's not "white" privilege.

Share |

Unpredictable Senate

It was only January 3, and we already had a legitimate submission for hypocrisy of the year. This was courtesy, unsurprisingly, of Donald J. Trump, of whom newly-elected US Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan told supporters at a Move On rally “We’re going to go in and impeach the motherf***er."

The President responded "I thought her comments were disgraceful. This is a person that I don't know, I assume she's new. I think she dishonored herself and I think she dishonored her family. Using language like that in front of her son and whoever else was there, I thought that was a great dishonor to her and to her family."

Now that Representative Tlaib has dishonored her family, where is Stormy Daniels when we need her? Democrats are unnecessarily, characteristically, alarmed, though Representative "Adam Schitt" remains characteristically calm.

Conventional, nearly universal, wisdom has it that the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives can impeach but that the GOP-controlled Senate will never convict. That rests on the ridiculous assumption that a Senate trial would take place in today's environment, in which 71% of Republican voters believed as of a month ago that the Special Counsel probe is a "witch hunt."

However, it is very unlikely there will be impeachment proceedings before Mueller issues a report- and even then, none unless the findings are damning.  However, if the findings are very serious- as is extremely likely-  there will be a shift in opinion among GOP voters. It may not be dramatic, but wouldn't have to be in order to make a Senate trial sufficiently competitive that a two-thirds majority would be found to throw Donald Trump out of office.

Yet, that assumption in turn rests on one made, from what I can tell, by every politician, pundit, and lawyer who has weighed in on the subject. The presupposition is that once the House has impeached the President, the Senate would take up the matter.

Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution reads "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."  Section 3 states

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Clearly, only the Senate has the power to try individuals who have been impeached. Almost as clearly, the Senate has no obligation to do so; it is granted not the responsibility, but the power.

So it is not certain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would post the case of the House v. President Donald J. Trump.  If he did bring it, GOP senators would have to to take a stand. At this moment- before release of the Special Counsel's report- that would be hazardous for the few representing states not strongly Republican. It's a risk he might prefer to avoid, similar to his decision, cowardly and irresponsible, to avoid bringing to a vote the House's bill ending the current government shutdown.

However, if Mueller's report establishes a strong likelihood that Trump were aided by a conspiracy involving his campaign and Russia, pressure would mount on even his own party's senators to vote to convict. While the Majority Leader would not like to force them into making a difficult decision which could be hazardous either way they voted, he might have no choice because a majority of the country would be clamoring for removal.

Consequently, a trial in the Senate- were it to take place- would not necessarily result in acquittal, notwithstanding conventional wisdom.  It is also unlikely to take place in the absence of overwhelming evidence which shocks the conscience of the nation, which makes Rashida Tlaib's enthusiasm nearly as unnecessary as the overheated response to it. 

Share |

No Deal

On Thursday we were reminded- aside from cost, ineffectiveness, and nostalgia for the Berlin Wall- there can be no Wall.

There actually are two additional reasons, alluded to in chat with Trump lackey Lindsey Graham and henchman Sean Hannity. The South Carolina senator argued

The compromise is [to] give the president the $5 billion we need for walls [and] border security as a down payment to securing the border. The DACA population is about 700,000. Give them work permits, three-year work permits, so they don’t have to worry about getting deported anytime soon. The TPS people who came here years ago from war-torn areas, hurricanes, and floods, and renew their legal status — no pathway to citizenship — and call it a day. It’s called a compromise.

That's no compromise.  A survey taken ten months ago "found that 76 percent of voters say that those who were eligible for protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program should be given a pathway to U.S. citizenship." That's not work permits so they "don't have to worry about getting deported anytime soon," while they worry about being deported in 3-4 years. It's injecting greater uncertainty into a situation in which neither recipients nor the broader American public want uncertainty.

Of course, it would benefit employers, who would be happy to have at-will employees always anxious about their situation and subservient to their employers. It would reinforce a gig economy which already artificially distorts the employer-employee balance and is one of the major driving forces in hollowing out the middle class.

A few moments further into the conversation, Hannity remarked

If this takes 150 days, I think the Republican Party needs to stand united with the president. I have confidence in you. I don’t have confidence in some of your colleagues, but saving lives, stopping drug trafficking, and human trafficking is worth the fight. Will the president hold the line?

This has little to do with saving lives, stopping drug trafficking, or stopping human trafficking. However, if President Trump gets any money for The Wall, he will not only declare himself the "winner." He will claim that he has saved lives and stopped drug trafficking and human trafficking, and perhaps achieved peace for all time.  The sunk cost fallacy will set in- now that we've gotten $5 billion for a wall and it has started going up, what's $10 billion more?

President Trump could tell his supporters: we're not getting a wall but will provide security at the border some other way. He could tell even boast of "the greatest security, ever, really strong borders, better than any other President."

He won't, of course, because he lacks any modicum of courage and needs to give a middle finger to Mexico and Mexicans. It's up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then, to make good on her assertion "We're not doing a wall. Does anyone have any doubt that we're not doing a wall? So that's that."

Share |

"Our God, Who Art In The White House"

It should be comforting to know that Jerry Falwell Jr. may someday abandon his support for forced-birth and adopt a pro-abortion rights policy. Nevertheless, it's right there in the middle of the interview, published New Year's Day, conducted by Joe Heim of The Washington Post:

(Heim)     Is there anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders?

(Falwell)  No.

(Heim)    That’s the shortest answer we’ve had so far.

(Falwell) Only because I know that he only wants what’s best for this country, and I know anything he does, it may not be ideologically “conservative,” but it’s going to be what’s best for this country, and I can’t imagine him doing anything that’s not good for the country.

Helpfully, Falwell dispenses with the usual rationalization of support for President Trump- conservative judges, opposition to abortion, advocacy of "religious freedom" (the right to discriminate based on Christian faith).

In its place, he states "there’s two kingdoms. There’s the earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom....A poor person never gave anyone a job. A poor person never gave anybody charity, not of any real volume." Slate's Ruth Graham explains the root of Falwell's belief in this "two kingdoms" theology, and its contrast to the mission statement of Liberty University, founded by father Jerry and now lucratively headed by the son.

But Graham notes also the

textbook piece of circular reasoning: Trump wants what’s best for the country, therefore anything he does is good for the country. There’s something almost sad about seeing this kind of idolatry articulated so clearly. In a kind of backhanded insult to his supporters, Trump himself once said that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing his base. It’s rare to see a prominent supporter essentially admit that this was true.

Idolatry, the worship of idols, may not seem to be the soundest foundation upon which to base a doctrine devoted to worship of God. However, when an individual (such as Falwell) with extremely conservative views pledges his allegiance to whatever a leader advocates though it may not be ideologically "conservative," an idol has been established.

That suggests- nay, assures- that Falwell will perform his Stepford act no matter what President Trump proposes.  If Trump returns to the pro-choice position he held in 1999 and at 9:21 a.m. Eastern time on June 28, 2015, and at 6:30 p.m. on April 1, 2016, Falwell will follow him.

Even though he maintained Trump could never endanger his support, that may seem hard to believe. However, someone who says that President Trump was forced to increase the debt and deficit, the GOP did better in the mid-terms than could be expected, and that it "may be immoral for" (blacks) not to support" Trump would never, ever tell a falsehood.

Share |