Week 9: March 17-23

So ends the 9th Week of the Trump presidency. A LOT has happened since last Friday. Here is the rundown.

His 9th week began last Friday with the release of Trump’s budget and the visit from Germany’s Chancellor Merkel.

There were a few minor international incidents that the White House caused during the Merkel visit. Michael Gerson summarizes them here: “…the diplomatic bloopers reel of the past few days has been played — the casual association of British intelligence with alleged surveillance at Trump Tower; the presidential tweets undermining Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during his Asia trip; and the rude and childish treatment given the German chancellor. When President Trump and Angela Merkel sat together in the Oval Office, we were seeing the leader of the free world — and that guy pouting in public.”

Trump also released his budget this week: an increase in military and homeland security (the wall) spending, no changes to entitlements, and massive cuts to other discretionary spending. There was a lot of reporting about how those cuts would hit rural and poor swaths of the country very hard. Republicans in Congress said they would not include all of Trump’s program cuts in the final budget.

After the weekend passed, two recurring Trump themes became prominent:

Russia

On Monday, FBI Director Comey finally spoke publicly. Takeaways: he is investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia ties, and there is not evidence of the Obama Administration surveilling the Trump campaign.

The New York Times wrote a piece about how Trump’s defenders are finding it more difficult to justify his tweets and more outlandish statements. The article contained this stunning line: “People close to the president say Mr. Trump’s Twitter torrent had less to do with fact, strategy or tactic than a sense of persecution bordering on faith.”

Then on Wednesday, Chairmen of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunnes made the bizarre move of going to the press and then to Trump with new evidence all without telling the rest of his committee what he had found. It spurred Trump to declare that he was partially vindicated in his wiretapping claim. The Democratic co-chair Adam Schiff said that the Committee may no longer be able to do its work. And John McCain said that Congress can no longer handle the responsibility of an investigation and there needs to be an independnet select committee to do the job.

Also on Wednesday night CNN released a story claiming evidence of Trump associates colluding with Russia during the campaign. It’s a very smoky story–no actual, specific fire–but I am posting it in case it turns out to have been significant.

Healthcare

The week began (and ended) with the waffling sense that the GOP just might pass the American Health Care Act but that they probably would not. This sensation was alive and well on Thursday (the 7th anniversary of the passage of Obamacare) when Paul Ryan was going to put the bill up for a vote, but because he did not have the votes it was postponed until Friday. Several last-minute modifications and deal-sweetners were added. Amid the wheeling and dealing, the New York Times ran this profile of a self-doubting Trump on the eve of the vote. Even on Friday, there was a palpable possibility that it might pass. But by the afternoon Ryan went to the White House–almost at the start of his 10th week on the job to the hour –and told him they had to pull the bill. This was 22 days after Rand Paul and others roamed the basement of the Capital Building looking for the secret reading room where Paul Ryan was showcasing his new health care bill to some of his members.

Here is Ezra Klein this Thursday with a piece that hedged bets the ACHA might pass: it argues that passing this bill into law would be Trump’s Iraq War. Turns out it won’t be.

 

 

 

 

Week 8: March 10-16

Week 8 began with more fallout from Trump’s wire-tapping cliams: McCain called on Trump to retract the claim.

Sean Spicer tried to convince everyone that Trump did not actually mean wiretapping literally. And the Justice Department requested more time from the congressional investigations to prove that wiretapping actually occurred.

This resulted in: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) threatened to subpoena the Trump administration to produce evidence of Trump’s claim, and congressional Republicans lined up to deny Trump’s claims.

Also, Democrats on the investigative committees said that they would abandon the bipartisan committees if they believed the Republicans were not holding an open and unbiased pursuit of the truth of what happened in the 2016 election.

In health care news, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that Paul Ryan and Trump’s American Health Care Act would result in 24 million people losing their health insurance. This Politico story is essential to understanding the reasons GOP are rushing the passage of the bill. And here is conservative David Frum arguing–for the uptenth time–how Republicans can win by making their peace with Obamacare.

Trump released his budget this week. Here is a good summary by the Wall Street Journal, and how the GOP Congress will probably rewrite most of it.

The week ended with yet another nation injunction of Trump’s travel ban, and how the legal argument is resting on Trump’s campaign pledge to ban Muslims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bernie Sanders in West Virginia

It is becoming an article of faith among the progressive left that the struggling working class, the poor, and people from declining rural communities would vote for progressive left politicians if only they were told (or permitted to hear) about all the ways progressive policies would benefit their lives.

This is why MSNBC host Chris Hayes and Bernie Sanders came to McDowel County last week. The town hall covered issues from joblessness, to the opioid epidemic, to health care–or, as the coal miner on the panel continuously called it, “hospitalization.” As a West Virginian I was glad to see Appalachian people speaking in their own voices instead of being used as a backdrop. Yes, Hayes and Sanders were using them as a bit of a backdrop for their message directed at Democratic power brokers and those viewers in their urban/costal bubbles, but even as a backdrop those people looked pretty normal and reasonably diverse: not the poor, dumb, violent, racist rubes of the stereotype.

bernie-sanders-wv

But if Sanders and other Democrats want to earn the votes of those people–not the people in this picture who chose to go to a Bernie Sanders town hall, but most everyone else in a state where 68% of the population voted for Trump–they will need to say something more than Sanders said here. To win here again left-leaning politicians will need a more clearcut jobs plan, which is something that neither the progressive left nor the establishment Democrats have figured out.

Some political history: West Virginia was a Democratic state for decades because most of the households were headed by people who worked blue color jobs in industries like mining or manufacturing. Over time institutional systems evolved to protect the wealth and the rights of those workers over the heretofore unbridled interests of their employers. These institutions, of which unions were a major player, channeled political power into the Democratic Party. From the Depression until 2000, the state voted for a Republican presidential candidate only three times. But by 2000 most of those blue-collar jobs had gone away, and the Democrats’ political power has been crumbling ever since. (When I was growing up all our Congressional reps were Democrats; now only one is–Joe Manchin–and he only got there by blowing holes in copies of Barack Obama’s legislation with a shotgun).

An important part of this story–one that progressives like Sanders should heed–is that the conservative message taps deep chords here: self-reliance; self-determination; the dignity of building something with your own hands; faith; kin. Not least of these is freedom. I do not mean the bumper sticker/flag-label platitude, but the kind of freedom you learn young while walking through the tall trees to the top of the ridge and you see all the other ridge lines rippling around you to the maroon horizon and not a soul in sight.

There can be no successful political message in Appalachia that does not hit these notes.

The Racism Explanation & Comparison to the Left in Europe

Some assume that racism and xenophobia are primary drivers pushing non-urban voters to the right. Even charitable versions of this view push the idea that the right is able to win with a message of fear. Fear of loss. Fear of the other.

Zack Beauchamp of Vox explores why the progressive left in Europe has been unable to win over populist, nativist voters with pure economic policies: “a party’s stance on economics isn’t very important to right-wing populist voters. People choose to back those parties because they want someone to shut down immigration and restrict the rights of Muslims, not because of those parties’ stances on trade or welfare spending.”

He points out that in Britain, the Labor party–under Jeremy Corbyn, who is compared more to Jill Stein than Bernie Sanders–has gone back to its socialist roots and is more unpopular than ever: “During Corbyn’s leadership, the far right has gained influence on UK politics, not lost it. Corbyn’s policy platform hasn’t stemmed the spread of anti-immigrant populism, and the Tories have made restricting immigration a central part of their agenda. Corbyn himself is now pandering to the right wing; he ordered Labour MPs to vote to begin the Brexit process in Parliament. And his numbers keep falling and falling. Left-wing politicians and writers insist that populist policies would win back disenchanted voters. In Britain, the exact opposite has happened.”

The argument goes that populist, nativist voters care most about protecting their cultural heritage, which they view as under threat. They do not really care about excessive government spending or overreach, unless that government spending and overreach is perceived to benefit people that do not belong to their cultural heritage.

Bringing it back to America, Beauchamp says this explains some of Trump’s appeal. Not only that, but the populist, nativist elements of Trumpism are built on decades of conservative opposition to government spending on the grounds that the money may benefit minorities, particularly black folks. While that may be hard to accept for some (and a big fat “duh” for others) he has a graph that charts how much each state has spent on welfare: the whitest states spend the most, and the states with large black populations spend the least.

Artboard_11_2x

The implication is that if Democrats think they can go into “Trump Country” and promise health care and free college and redistribution from the top 1%, it might not win the nativist voters because 1) those voters might suspect minorities will benefit from that redistribution; and 2) populist right-wing politicians might begin promising the same redistribution for the sole benefit of white people (the emerging populist wing of the GOP is already pushing Trump to scrap Paul Ryan’s health care bill and replace it with a Medicare-for-all type program).

It is simply wrong that rural voters and the disaffected working class are driven to the GOP by racism and fear. Some of them are, but it is far from the main driver for most voters. In Appalachia specifically there are many myths about Appalachian whiteness that cast white residents in both heroic and villainous racial roles. Read a great analysis of these in Elizabeth Catte’s essay for 100 Days in Appalachia, a news page dedicated to covering Appalachian issues in the Trump era. 17% of Appalachian residents consider themselves an ethnic or racial minority (9% are black, 4% are hispanic). In the 1990s, 48% of the people who moved into Appalachia from somewhere else were non-white. Undoubtedly, some of these non-white Appalachians voted for Trump.

Job, Jobs, Jobs

For any in the progressive left who think West Virginia is ripe for the picking, consider two bills working their way through the state legislature right now. One would allow people to opt out of vaccinating their children based on religious conviction. Another would reduce the number of mine safety inspections from 4 a year to practically zero. This is a deeply conservative state. But Democrats can get a hearing here if they have a clearer jobs message.

Progressives tend to think that they can win with the message of “sticking it to the man,” of a rigged economic game, and promises to tax the wealthy for the benefit of the non-wealthy. Sanders’s main campaign plank was to break up the big banks. This can be a rousing message in West Virginia where most people know the history of our vast natural wealth taken out from under us and hauled out of the state. The tyranny of the Company Store is within living memory for most of us, passed down from our parents and grandparents who lived in coal camps.

So this progressive message at a stump speech might solicit cheers from a crowd of struggling working class people, but it soon begins to ring hollow. When it comes to their main concerns, this message passes like a sugar high and leaves them feeling empty. It is low-calorie politics.

I imagine one of these voters leaving such a rally thinking the following thoughts: “Ok, break up the big banks and spread the money around. Great. But after I drop off my kid at free childcare, what do I do with myself for the rest of the day? What job do I go to? I’ll get regular checkups with health insurance, but what is the great purpose in my life that my health is supposed to be in the service of? I can send my kid to tuition-free college, or even myself, but what’s the point of reading all those textbooks if I don’t know what career we’re supposed to enter when we graduate?”

These questions need to be answered. To do so, progressives need to become less allergic to supporting business interests and job creation. (The fact that left-wing parties in Europe are going in the other direction and becoming more socialist is an indication that the allergy is strong). Conservatives don’t have a clear 21st Century jobs plan either. Slashing regulations and taxes requires too much faith on the part of the voter that Help Wanted signs will magically appear as a result.

We need clear, straightforward, step-by-step plans for building new industries and new jobs within old industries. This will require new thinking, heavy doses of local knowledge, and probably a new class of politicians. Whoever figures this out first will do well in “Trump Country.” As Sanders knows–and as Trump has proven–if you can win in McDowel County, you are going to walk away with vast swaths of the rest of the country behind you. Maybe the future leader who will solve this riddle of jobs is living there right now.

 

 

 

Star Trek Discovery will be a Different Kind of Trek than we are used to, Part I

With CBS’s new Trek series, Star Trek is about to be updated to suit modern TV tastes and expectations. This bodes will for its success, but long-time fans need to prepare ourselves for just how different it will be.

To be sure, a lot will feel familiar: the costumes, the sets, the props, the dialogue. There are many early clues that even the classic Trekian themes will be on full display, despite our fears that CBS would try to go dark and nihilistic with a Game-of-Thrones-in-space knock off.

No, what will be different is much deeper than the color of the paint on the deck plates and the Klingon make up. It is the narrative structure undergirding the story that will be unlike anything we have seen on Trek in its 50 year history.

Two main reasons, the first of which I will discuss in this essay.

Like most streaming shows, DISCOVERY will have serialized seasons of 13 episodes. Each season will tell a primary, contained story. All of the episodes will be connected. There will be numerous story lines all woven together.

This is how most shows are written these days, but Trek was never like this. With all five previous Trek series, each episode told a contained story built around a theme or sci-fi concept or character exploration. The episode ended with the ship sailing off into space, and when we saw it again in the next episode it was as if that previous episode never happened. The idea that characters seldom changed for good–despite whatever bizarre or traumatic thing happened in any given episode–is widely mocked as the Reset Button. But it was how the writers and the studios wanted it, so that the episodes could be rerun in no particular order for syndication. (There is one striking example of serialization on TNG. The episode after Picard was assimilated by the Borg had him returning to his childhood home so his family could help him cope with the trauma, and I’ve heard that Roddenberry hated the idea.)

Today I think everyone is aware of the benefits of season-long serialization: richer and more complex character arcs; more dramatic stories with higher stakes. But there is one drawback that might sting Trek fans in particular. The concept of The Episode may lose its meaning in fandom. Most serialized shows, especially genre shows, do not really have episodes: they are 13-hour movies with credit sequences arbitrarily dropped in every 50 minutes or so. If Star Trek fandom is based on any common bond it is this phrase: “Remember that episode when…?” It is easy to remember that one where Kirk fought the Gorn; when Spock mind melded with the pizza-rug alien; when the crew got space drunk; when Picard was assimilated; when the crew got caught in a time loop and kept reliving the same day; when Beverly made love with a space ghost, and on and on… (I remember having these conversations when there were precious fewer aired Trek episodes than there are now!).

With DISCOVERY, this may no longer be possible. If it is one gigantic story that rolls into itself through each episode, it will be impossible to recall later where one episode ended and the other began. Not impossible–fans are known for their fastidious memory–but it will be pointless. And we DS9 fans know this. DS9 was worlds and away more serialized than any other Trek show, or any other genre show of its era. Most episodes were stand alone, but each season had a contained story arc. There were two instances where a string of episodes were fully serialized: the first six of Season 6, and the final nine episodes of the final season. These were wild rides to be sure, and exciting at the time and upon re-watch, but none of the actual episodes stand out in my memory. You recall the grand sweep–retaking the station from Dukat; defeating the Dominion and ending the war–but the particulars are all a muddle.

For a moment, just indulge a comparison of the DS9 finale and the TNG finale. TNG ended with a powerful but quiet moment: Picard sitting down with his crew at the poker table, having fully absorbed a lesson that was a theme of this one episode. DS9 ended with Sisko casting an ancient Bajoran holy book into an ancient Bajoran fire cave, the significance of which required many of the previous 8 episodes to understand. DS9’s finale did not quite work. It’s not that I am against complex stories. But when the writers know they have 9 or 13 hours of story to tell, they tend to focus on plot above all else. How else are you going to fill the time? When you know you have only 45-50 minutes, good writers first think of theme and character, and make sure the plot serves those ends. This is the danger of serialized seasons.

Star Trek has always been its best in those small moments of revelation brought about by a tightly focused 45-minute story. I’m not suggesting DISCOVERY will not pull off similar moments of revelation, but it may be delivered in a different way than we are used to.

It is said that TV series today are like novels. You do not think back on a novel and say, “I loved that chapter.” Instead, you loved the whole book and you recall certain scenes or moments fondly. Star Trek used to be like an anthology of short stories, and you could savor (or hate) particular outings. This is no more.

By the way: Mad Men is the only show I know of that successfully bridged this divide. Show runner Matthew Weiner’s directive was the each episode must be a self-contained story, and yet each episode was seamlessly serialized with the one before and after it, constructing a season-long story arc. DISCOVERY should follow this model.

One last point: There is also the impact on characterization. A series made of stand-alone episodes sacrifices having evolving characters and complex arcs in exchange for character-centric episodes. The writers say: “We’re not going to do anything shocking or radical with Scotty or Chekov or Data or Beverly or Geordie, or even Kirk, Spock, Riker or Picard, but we will devote entire episodes to them.” This will not happen with any of DISCOVERY’s 13 episodes. By my count there are now over 10 announced important characters. This will be a true ensemble, with some getting more screen time than others. The 3rd or 4th or 5th-tier cast member might get their own big part in a story line, but they will not get their own episode all to themselves. With only 13 episodes (compared to 24) there simply isn’t time.

Next up, I will explore more about one fascinating aspect of DISCOVERY’s characters, and one that will also be a radical break form all previous Trek: The captain is not the lead character, or rather the lead character will not be the one sitting in the center seat making all the decisions. How can this work?

Week 7: March 3-9

Week 7 began with Trump tweeting an unprecedented and unfounded accusation against his predecessor: that Obama wire tapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Here is how the Washington Post and the New York Times covered the story the day of the tweets.

The accusation motivated FBI Director Comey to ask the DOJ to refute the claim. These statements were not public. We only know about them because of reporting from the NYTimes, later independently confirmed by CNN. The Justice Department has declined to comment one way or the other, despite Comey’s request. However, Republicans in Congress have declined to support Trump’s wiretap claim. Suffice to say, Sean Spicer has had a tough week answering questions about all this.

Also this week, for the first time the House and Senate congressional committees investigating the 2016 election began to receive classified evidence of Russia’s involvement.

Paul Ryan rolled out his health care bill. It did not go over well. Here are some good explainers: Conservative, Obamacare critic Avik Roy offers a balanced critique; an exploration of whether Ryan’s bill is Obamacare lite; here is Vox’s Mathew Yglesias on why Republicans just aren’t very good at health care legislation; and here is Ross Douthat on Trump’s role in all of this.

 

Week 6: February 24-March 2

This week was a good week to have read some newspapers. Here’s what happened:

Week 6 began with commentary on the similarity of worldview in Stephen Bannon and Trump’s CPAC addresses; and more White House’s attacks on journalists and intelligence community leakers.

Promoting his book of portraits, George W. Bush leveled some criticism a Trump’s bashing of the media, among other things.

Politico gave an illuminating profile of Trump’s management style of his businesses going back to the 1980s. It is full of interviews with people who used to work with him. Their verdict is that Trump is now managing his administration the same way he did his businesses.

Washington Post reporters spoke with Trump voters in Iowa. Their verdict is that Trump needs to start focusing on “us, on our country, on our issues here.”

CBS News released a poll that divides the country into four groups: Trump believers (22%), conditionals (22%), curious (21%), and Trump resisters (35%). (Commentary: which camp do you think I belong to?)

CNN reports that the Trump Administration was going to introduce its new travel ban the day after his address to Congress. But they delayed it so not to distract from all the positive press the speech had caused. (Commentary: maybe any admin. would have done that, but it strikes me as odd to hold back on one of your central policies for fear it would step on good press. Are they getting gun shy?)

Speaking of the congressional address, here is an interview with conservative thinker Yuval Levin on Trump’s presidential performance. Levin makes a philosophical distinction between the presidency as an institutional mold that shapes an individual to it versus an individual’s platform: Trump uses the presidency as a platform, but sometimes tries to fit into the mold. Also, David Brooks gives his review of the speech.

The Russia connection got a lot smokier this week (still no fire):

  • WaPo reports that the FBI was going to pay a salary to the spy who was digging up intel on Trump’s ties to Russia. The money was to go to Christopher Steele after his election season contract was up with some private companies. However, the FBI never made these payments. And Steele is now in hiding.
  • The New York Times reports that Obama officials purposefully, strategically scattered and archived intelligence about Trump-Russia connections throughout the federal government so that this intel could not be easily destroyed and would be accessible by future investigations.
  • Here is the WaPo story about Sessions’s meetings with the Russian Ambassador that lead to Sessions recusing himself from said investigations.

Finally, the GOP Congress is still trying to legislate. Paul Ryan has a draft Obamacare replacement bill but has sequestered it in a private reading room in the basement, presumably so that details will not be leaked and used to attack this bill. People eager to get leaked details so they can attack the bill are most Democrats and some Republicans, like Rand Paul.

Week 5: February 17-23

Week 5 began with the media commenting on Trump’s first press conference as president. Apparently the 77 chaotic minutes were a sight to behold.

The Russia story of the week revolved around White House aids circulating a peace plan being pushed by a pro-Russian politician in Ukraine that would allow for the U.S. to drop Russian sanctions. The Kremlin had to deny any knowledge of the plan. This is a good Who’s Who of the Russia connections in Trump’s orbit.

By week’s end, CNN reported that Reince Priebus had asked the FBI to publicly deny reports that the Trump campaign was in regular contact with senior Russian officials before the election. The FBI refused.

And David Leonhardt of the New York Times opines on five possible explanations for Trump’s Russophilia.

Trump named his new National Security Advisor, Lt General McMaster.

This bizarre story about Trump and Sweden shows how cavalier Trump is about foreign relations, as well as how he uses friendly cable news clips as facts to support his assertions, no matter how baseless those new clips are.

Trump’s Education and Justice Department reversed the Obama Administration’s policy that nondiscrimination laws allowed transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice in schools. What is interesting here is that Ed. Secretary Betsy DeVos was against the reversal but was overruled by Jeff Sessions. She was successful in adding language that says schools have an obligation to protect transgender students from bullying.

Finally, NASA announced the discover of seven exoplanets orbiting a red dwarf 40 light years away.

 

Week 4: February 10-16

Trump’s 4th week started with reporting on an uptick of deportations: New York Times story about an illegal immigrant who has been here since she was a teenager, has been checking in with immigration officials regularly for eight years, and was just deported; and this Washington Post story about increased ICE raids.

Michael Flynn resigned under a cloud, having been in contact with the Russian ambassador before Trump took office and lying about it. Here is conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer arguing that Flynn did nothing wrong other than lie, and he speculates why Flynn would lie if not to cover up for some larger scandal regarding Russia.

This New York Times story reports on growing concern in Congress about Trump’s Russia connections.

And here is the big New York Times story about the intelligence community leaking reports that there were repeated contacts between the Trump campaign and high Russian officials. Nate Silver says this is more smoke than fire at this point, but the fact that news organizations have dozens of reporters on this story, and the IC is leaking to them, shows that fire may eventually be uncovered.

More judges beyond the Ninth Circuit continued to find Trump’s immigration ban unconstitutional, in this Wall Street Journal report.

In this Wall Street Journal editorial, a good Who’s Who of the Trump White House, and a plea to centralize command (under Priebus) so that the administration can become more effective and less chaotic. And here is a Washington Post story about said chaos. And here is a good WaPo opinion piece by Michael Gerson about how no one is in charge in the White House.

Congressional Town Halls are in the news, with some Republicans holding contentious ones and others are refusing to even hold them. This National Review editorial urges Republicans to take the protests seriously, and compares the current protest movement to the Tea Party.

Finally, a disturbing report from the Wall Street Journal that spies in the Intelligence Community are withholding information from the Trump White House for fear that it will be leaked to Russia.

Why “Resist” might be the banner of the Trump opposition

Sometimes a writer comes along and explains a shift that is happening within you  that you were not fully conscious of until you read the piece. This happened to me last week.

From the election until last week, I was of the mindset that progressives and Democrats needed to tailor their Trump-era message and approach specifically to attract non-city voters, including the white working class that was drawn in by Trump’s message. I believed that we needed to emphasize an economic message over the usual liberal pieties that were nicely summed up by the Women’s March Unity Principles. I believed we needed to talk and campaign differently than the ways that just lost the last election–to go in a more Clintonian (Bill, not Hillary) political direction. To pitch a big tent. To reach out to people we disagree with. To tiptoe around sensitive cultural issues where we don’t see eye to eye with these “deplorables.”

While I still believe that to be necessary, the second week of the Trump presidency has made me realize that I was applying old thinking that no longer applies to the current political environment. Seeing the near-spontaneous protests erupt at the nation’s airports over Trump’s immigration ban from Muslim countries made me realize that there will be no tiptoeing around traditional Red-state/Blue-state issues because we are all–all of us–going to be sucked into a great maelstrom of Trump’s presidency. Pro-Trump and anti-Trump opposition will build, and alliances will be formed that will bear little resemblance to the old order. Also, I suspect that the anti-Trump opposition will have most of the country behind it before this is over.

Here are the key excerpts from the Ross Douthat column that made me realize this:

“So why the weekend frenzy, the screaming headlines, the surge of protest? Because of several features inherent to populism, which tend to undermine its attempts to govern no matter the on-paper popularity of its ideas.

First, populism finds its voice by pushing against the boundaries of acceptable opinion. But in the process it often embraces bigotries and extremisms that in turn color the reception of its policies….

Second, having campaigned against elites and experts and all their pomps and works, populists imagine that their zeal can carry all before it, that proceduralism and institutional knowledge are for losers and toadies and men with soft hands, and that a few guys in the White House can execute a major overhaul of a delicate system without bureaucratic patience or rhetorical finesse. … Then, finally, because populism thrives on its willingness to shatter norms, it tends to treat this chaos and blowback as a kind of vindication — a sign that it’s on the right track, that its boldness is meeting inevitable resistance from the failed orthodoxies of the past, and so on through a self-comforting litany. That makes it hard for populists to course correct, because they get stuck in a “the worse the better” loop, reassuring themselves that they’re making progress when actually they’re cratering.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the divide, the ascent of populism also creates an unusual level of solidarity among elites, who feel moved to resist on a scale that they wouldn’t if similar policies were pursued by normal political actors. Thus Trump, not even two weeks into his presidency, has already faced unusual pushback from the intelligence community, the Justice Department, the State Department and other regions of the bureaucracy, even as the media-entertainment complex unites against him on a scale unseen even in previous Republican administrations, and the Democratic Party is pressured into scorched-earth opposition before policy negotiations are even joined. These tensions ratcheted up over the weekend; it’s difficult to see how they ratchet down.

Before last week, I was uninterested in the calls to vote down Trump’s cabinet–because in normal politics a president should get to pick his team. Before last week, I was more interested in Democrats showing themselves willing to work with Trump–because in normal politics this is how you show yourself to be reasonable, and it is how you can get some of your party’s ideas into the other party’s legislation. But now it is clear that normal politics will be of little consequence no matter how carefully it is played–it will be overwhelmed by Trump’s actions. I now feel that “unusual level of solidarity” Douthat refers to, and I am ready to resist everything. Not because of policy, not because of political tactics. But because all that Trump stands for must be opposed on moral grounds. His vision of our country–its institutions and traditions and laws–is a hologram twisted through the lens of his narcissism. The policies of his administration, so far as we can now tell, will represent the anti-globalist, bigoted views of Steve Bannon. We can critique the policies and Bannon’s ideas as wrong and destructive in the same way we have always waged political arguments. But Trump’s mental state will take precedence over all–he will insist on it. And this is the smartest reason to resist him at every turn–because he will ultimately lose the entire country’s respect and support. Everyone, from the white working class to the transgender activist, will pile on. We might as well start now and get this over with. Resist. Reconciliation and cooperation can come later, after the boil is lanced from our politics and normal politics can resume. Let the message ring from every mountain top and every town hall: fuck this guy.

 

Week 3: February 3-9

After two weeks of stumbles, White House staff spoke to the New York Times about how they are adjusting their management structure to be more effective. This kind of behind-the-curtain, gossipy reporting–typically written about administrations in flux–does offer insights. The staff who go on record are tacitly admitting they have a mess to clean up, and promise changes. The staff who speak anonymously are usually trying to get their ideas and advice to the president through the papers, and sometimes trying to make rival staff look bad. This is true in this piece (poor Reince). Among many gems here, we learn that Trump watches cable news day and night and he is not happy about how he is seeing his administration depicted there. We also learn about the dynamic between chief advisors Bannon, Kushner and Priebus.

On Bill O’Reilly’s show, Trump once again made the argument that the US cannot criticize Putin’s Russia because we are not so innocent.

That comment, and the continuing fall out from the Immigration Executive Order spurred many conservative pro-Trump writers to explain why it is becoming harder and harder to defend the President. Even Joe Scarborough, who has regular private conversations with Trump, penned a mildly scolding history lesson about Soviet atrocities.

Finally, a federal appeals panel refused to allow Trump’s Immigration ban to continue. Here is a good analysis of the legal path forward for the ban. And here David French, who supports the ban, gives a scathing conservative critique of the Trump Administration’s roll out of the ban and its weak legal strategy to keep it alive.