Getting Nasty Again

History has been kind to Harry Truman. During his presidency no one thought much of him, but years later his bluntness and honesty made up for him being a bit of a hick. He did give ’em hell. On the other hand, he did give the Japanese hell. Eisenhower was fine, but now, his decision, in 1953, to have the CIA engineer a coup to remove the newly-elected democratic government in Iran and bring back the Shah, seems unforgivable. Few in the Middle East will ever forgive that. We’re still paying for that – and as for Kennedy, his assassination made him a hero and a martyr, but the accomplishments of his administration are few. What did he actually do? Lyndon Johnson got done what Kennedy was only edging toward, all the civil rights legislation and all the Great Society stuff – Medicare and Medicaid and Head Start and all the rest. But Johnson sent us all-in, full-speed, into Vietnam. That disaster is his legacy. He knew it. He wouldn’t run again in 1968, and with Bobby Kennedy swiftly assassinated and the Democrats left with Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon was next up. What was his legacy – years and years of more war in Vietnam, the bombing of Cambodia and the incursion into Laos, and, finally a peace treaty that meant little, as we eventually just left, ceding the place to the North Vietnamese? That’s not much of a legacy – but there was the opening with China and creating the EPA – but then there was Watergate. Being the only president to resign in disgrace doesn’t burnish your legacy.

Gerald Ford was next – an amiable caretaker who did no harm – followed by Jimmy Carter – introspective and puzzling and gone after one term. Then it was Ronald Reagan, who simultaneously won the Cold War and proved to everyone that government is totally useless, neither of which is quite true. It doesn’t matter. If people believe that’s true that’s Reagan’s legacy, and George H. W. Bush has no legacy. He was so plodding and prudent he angered his own party, and impressed no one else. He too was gone after one term, followed by Bill Clinton – all scandal, all the time, and eight years of peace and prosperity, with a booming economy and jobs for everyone, and a surplus, not a deficit, the day he left office. Still, there was Monica Lewinsky.

The less said about George W. Bush the better. Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, Katrina, the total collapse of the economy – that’s his legacy. There’s a reason he’s been hiding since the day he left office. Obama’s legacy may be Obamacare, inching us closer to the rest of the world in making some sort of healthcare available to all citizens, or reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, or the Iran deal that will keep those folks from developing nuclear weapons, setting up a whole new way of dealing with the Middle East – talk, listen, and work things out – as an alternative to endless wars. Other lists could be devised, covering trade deals, and that climate deal with China, and his executive actions on immigration reform, and all sorts of things. If you’re one of those who hates all these things you still say all this is Obama’s legacy – you simply say he should be ashamed of all of it. There are those who are still angry that FDR created Social Security – but they don’t say that didn’t happen. Obama has a legacy.

There’s also a different sort of legacy. Historians may look back on the eight years of the Obama administration as a brief anomalous period of uneasy racial civility. Obama was our first black president, and we may not ever have another, but because he was our president, few felt comfortable saying he did this or that only because he was black. That sort of thing was confined to talk radio. When Glenn Beck argued, passionately, that President Obama hates white people, even Fox News dumped Beck. Stick to policy. Don’t talk about race – and of course Obama made that easier. He avoided being too black. He would not play the Angry Black Man. That just wasn’t him. He was, by nature, calm and gracious and thoughtful, and also absurdly well-educated, and well-spoken. There was nothing “black” to latch onto.

This was new. There was no way to inject “race” into any discussion of public policy, unless you wanted to look like a jerk. All the talk that Obama was born in Kenya, or that somehow he inherited a Mau-Mau anti-colonial mindset from some grandfather long ago, was greeted with a weary shrug. Stick to policy. There’s no need to be nasty.

That’s worked for the last six and a half years, but as Obama’s second term draws to a close, with the certainty that he’ll be gone soon enough, racial nastiness is certain to return – and with the last year of news of one white cop after another killing an unarmed black man, or a black kid, racial tensions are running high. The nastiness is back:

After a white Houston sheriff’s deputy was ambushed and fatally shot by a black man at a gas station, the sheriff linked the killing to heightened tension over the treatment of African-Americans by police, citing the “Black Lives Matter” movement.

Shannon J. Miles, whose criminal record includes convictions for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct with a firearm, was to be arraigned Monday in the shooting of Darren Goforth, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. Miles’ arrest Saturday came less than 24 hours after authorities said he ambushed Goforth at a suburban Houston Chevron station. …

“Our assumption is that he (Goforth) was a target because he wore a uniform,” the sheriff said. Hickman and Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson pushed back against the criticism of police.

“We’ve heard Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. Well, cops’ lives matter, too,” Hickman said Saturday.

You want a race war, you’ll get a race war, although he did say “So why don’t we just drop the qualifier, and say ‘Lives matter.'” – but the damage was done:

The nationwide “Black Lives Matter” movement that formed after 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri has sought sweeping reforms of policing. Related protests erupted in Texas recently after a 28-year-old Chicago-area black woman, Sandra Bland, was found dead in a county jail about 50 miles northwest of Houston three days after her arrest on a traffic violation. Texas authorities said she committed suicide but her family is skeptical of that.

Deray McKesson, a leader in the Black Lives Matter movement, told the Houston Chronicle: “It is unfortunate that Sheriff Hickman has chosen to politicize this tragedy and to attribute the officer’s death to a movement that seeks to end violence.”

This already is political:

A prayer walk in Goforth’s honor drew hundreds of people Sunday evening. As the group marched through the streets escorted by law enforcement vehicles, traffic in the opposite lanes came to a halt, video from news helicopters showed. Onlookers stood along the road, some waving American flags and others snapping photos. …

This is not the first time the issues of racial tension and anti-police sentiment have emerged following a fatal shooting of an officer. Authorities said the man who ambushed and killed two NYPD cops in Brooklyn last year made online posts that were “very anti-police” and cited Ferguson. The suspect, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, wrote on an Instagram account: “I’m putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let’s take 2 of theirs.”

And there’s this:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested President Obama bore some of the blame for Friday’s fatal shooting of a sheriff’s deputy in Houston, Texas. During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Cruz told reporters that “cops across this country are feeling the assault” thanks to the “vilification” of law enforcement by administration officials, the Dallas Morning News reported.

“These are brave heroes who risk their lives keeping us safe,” Cruz said. “And I do think we’re seeing the manifestation of the rhetoric and vilification of law enforcement, of police, that is coming from the president of the United States and it’s coming from senior officials.”

Those black kids SHOULD have been shot:

Cruz suggested President Obama’s condemnation of the fatal shootings of unarmed black teenagers in cities including Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland helped to inflame anti-cop sentiment.

“I’m proud to stand with law enforcement,” Cruz said. “We need a president who doesn’t attack and vilify them, and who doesn’t seek to tear us apart along racial lines, to inflame racial divisions.”

Question a cop killing another unarmed black kid and you’re a racist tearing the country apart. You can say that now that Obama is leaving soon, but Donald Trump was already there, weeks earlier on Meet the Press:

CHUCK TODD: I want to ask you about Black Lives Matter. The latest shooting of a white police officer shooting an unarmed black man. Do you see this as a crisis in America?

DONALD TRUMP: It’s a massive crisis. It’s a double crisis. What’s happening and people. You know, I look at things. And I see it on television. And some horrible mistakes are made. At the same time, we have to give power back to the police because crime is rampant. And I’m a big person that believes in very big – you know, we need police. And we need protection. Look, I look at some of the cities. You look at Baltimore. You look at so many different places in this country. Chicago. Certain areas of Chicago. They need strong police protection. And those police can do the job. But their jobs are being taken away from them. At the same time, you’ve got these other problems. And there’s no question about it. They are problems. There is turmoil in our country.

CHUCK TODD: Do you understand why African Americans don’t trust the police right now?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, I can certainly see it when I see what’s going on. But at the same time, we have to give power back to the police because we have to have law and order… We have to give strength and power back to the police.

The police need absolute power again? They don’t have that? And now there’s Fox News’ Elisabeth Hasselbeck – “Why has the Black Lives Matter movement not been classified yet as a hate group?”

But there’s Aurin Squire:

On Wednesday a disgruntled former employee named Vester Lee Flanagan, a black man, shot and killed two white TV news reporters on air in Roanoke, Virginia. On Saturday Shannon J. Miles, also African American, was arrested for shooting a Texas deputy. These incidents are the latest in a long, numbing progression of recent tragedies at the nexus of gun control, mental health, and a violent culture reacting in rage at a sense of helplessness.

These mass shootings are also usually perpetrated by mentally disturbed white men. But when I found out that an African American man was the killer in one incident and the accused in another, I knew conservative sites like Breitbart would seek to frame the incidents, like any black-on-white crime, as indicative of reverse racism, and a political dog whistle that they are under attack. “RACE MURDER IN VIRGINIA: BLACK REPORTER SUSPECTED OF EXECUTING WHITE COLLEAGUES – ON LIVE TELEVISION!” blared the initial Breitbart headline. On Fox, “Justice with Jeanine” used the Texas story as an opportunity to blame Obama and call Black Lives Matter “black slime that needs to be eradicated.”

American Thinker, a conservative blog, claimed that the “evil” things put in the [Virginia] murderer’s head were the result of Obama liberalism.

That was curious as was Justice with Jeanine and that talk of black slime that needs to be eradicated. Obama is leaving office. Anything goes now:

The local weather is cold so global climate warming isn’t real; if women have greater access to birth control they will become hard-drinking promiscuous abortioneers; the Second Amendment means the government should never take actions in prohibiting gun access to any adult; and taking care of poor people incentivizes poverty. But racial false equivalency is one of the right wing’s most consistent rhetorical tricks. …

In response to the immigration debate, Donald Trump trots out the tragedy of an illegal Mexican immigrant shooting a woman as a sign that all immigrants are a violent threat. When the growing video evidence of police brutality began popping up on screens last summer, the shooting of two NYPD cops by a deeply paranoid African-American man was the perfect opportunity for the New York City’s police union and Fox News to attack Obama and Mayor Bill de Blasio for their alleged hatred toward police.

In light of the Virginia murders, Fox News and conservative bloggers are trotting out one of their old false equivalence standards: Black people commit crimes in hatred against white people, so therefore they should be treated the same as hate crimes against blacks.

Aurin Squire isn’t happy about that – there’s a power imbalance – but the race war is coming:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump released a chilling video Monday attacking opponent Jeb Bush for once suggesting that undocumented immigrants entered the United States as “an act of love.”

The 15-second video, which Trump posted to Instagram and Twitter, begins with the text: “Jeb Bush’s Thoughts on Illegal Immigration.”

It plays sound of Bush, a former Florida governor, saying of undocumented immigrants, “Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.”

Over the sound of Bush talking, with harrowing music playing, the Trump video flashes mug shots of Francisco Sanchez, who was charged in the San Francisco killing of Kate Steinle; Santana Gaona, a Texas man found guilty of a murder; and Brian Omar Hyde, who was charged with three killings in Florida.

Then the screen turns black and, in white lettering, asks: “Love? Forget love. It’s time to get tough!”

And the obvious:

Trump’s video – his latest play in an escalating feud with Bush – awakens memories of the 1988 “Willie Horton” ad, one of the most notorious political attacks in recent decades. The ad was used to devastating effect to undermine then-Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis on criminal justice issues.

Here we go again, but some are unhappy:

After losing the 2012 presidential election, Republican Party leaders vowed to craft a message they thought would be more in tune with the middle class, promising to deliver faster economic growth and to help all workers, not just the very rich. The message was built on the bedrock GOP notion that the primary enemy of the American economy is an oversized and overreaching federal government.

But those careful plans have hit a large and brash-talking obstacle in the form of current Republican front-runner Donald J. Trump.

Trump’s surging campaign has pushed the party in a different direction, one that often clashes with free-market principles that have long underpinned GOP economic policy. Some establishment Republicans worry that the turn could damage the economy, and their party, for years to come.

It comes down to this:

Trump criticizes government, but he shot to the top of the GOP field by rallying voters against another enemy: immigrants from Mexico and low-wage workers in China, whom he blames for lost jobs and stagnant wages in America. He has proposed levying tariffs on imported goods, deporting millions of immigrants who entered America illegally and reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed in each year. In a further blow against conservative orthodoxy, he has said in recent interviews that he favors higher taxes on the rich and on investment income.

Critics, including many leading conservative economists in Washington, call Trump’s plans “nativist,” “protectionist” and incompatible with the party’s core pro-market beliefs. They also worry Trump’s ideas could spread to other GOP contenders.

“This is a very dangerous moment, I think, for the Republican Party,” said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist and co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, which has been meeting with candidates to urge them to adopt low-tax, low-regulation policies to grow the economy.

“What Trump is saying about trade and immigration is a political and economic disaster,” Moore said. “He’s almost now making it cool and acceptable to be nativist on immigration and protectionist on trade. That’s destroying a lot of the progress we’ve made as a party in the last 30 years.”

Moore and the others want Trump to talk policy, but with the moderating influence of Obama soon to be gone, being nasty is back, and acceptable.

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn column for the Washington Post and sees this:

Republican operatives, insiders affiliated with no campaign and donors with whom Right Turn spoke last week are not pleased about the state of the GOP race. … They are angst-ridden over Donald Trump’s staying power, but more than that, the inability of the other candidates to respond effectively and present themselves as an effective alternative.

These Republicans, on one hand, despair that an egocentric bully with no discernible political principles should be leading in polls. They observe that his incoherent mix of authoritarianism, protectionism and cronyism is antithetical to the modern conservative movement, and in tone is 180 degrees from Ronald Reagan. But they also note that he is building an organization and displaying “P.T. Barnum showmanship,” as one veteran of GOP presidential campaigns put it. They shake their heads, unable to fully comprehend Trump’s appeal, but more than that they are disturbed by the rest of the field. They do not believe Trump will be the nominee, but high hopes for a deep, quality field have not been met. In particular, they are worried that Trump’s embrace of “nativism” will doom the party if mimicked by others.

It may be too late for that:

Donald Trump is “emasculating” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with his attacks and his performance in state and national polling, prominent Republican strategist Steve Schmidt said Monday.

“Look, Jeb Bush was a very successful governor, he’s a thoughtful man – he was a good, conservative governor. But every day, Donald Trump is emasculating Jeb Bush, and Republican primary voters are not going to default to the establishment candidate who is being weakened by these attacks that go unresponded to.”

Nancy LeTourneau sees what’s happening here:

We’re hearing a lot these days about how boys/men are being emasculated. It has become a regular theme on Fox News (who also call it the “wussification of America”) and talk radio. Why is that?

The message aimed at boys is to suggest that the only way to be a “real man” is to be a bully. Whether it’s with your fists, your bombs, or your words, it’s all about putting others down as a childish way of lifting yourself up.

But it’s also a way of denigrating men who demonstrate the capacity for compassion, empathy, thoughtfulness and cooperation. In other words, men who display characteristics we normally associate with women. That’s because in a patriarchal culture, those qualities represent weakness.

That made this inevitable:

At a time when the right wing in this country is consumed with a backlash against the inevitable demise of white male heterosexual dominance, Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign might have failed because of this – even if he weren’t showing himself to be incredibly gaffe-prone.

But this call to “manliness” from our leaders hasn’t just come from the right. While not as harsh or widespread as the conservative version, there have been many suggestions that President Obama needs to “man up” or take off his tutu and put on his boxing gloves. Calling Obama “feminized” is the heart of Maureen Dowd’s critique of this President.

All of this is a kind of sexist dog-whistle.

Of course it is, but that only matches the racist dog-whistles now heard throughout the land. Saying that black lives matter is hate speech from a hate group that gets cops killed, so those people had better shut up? It only gets worse from here on out – and when historians look back on the Obama presidency they will probably note the most curious thing about it – the relatively low level of overt and blatant nastiness. But that’s not a legacy. That’s an anomaly. We won’t see that again. Our future presidents will be white. We’ll get nasty again.

Posted in Black Lives Matter, Donald Trump, Obama Legacy, Racist Dog-Whistles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Out in the Midday Sun

Gilbert and Sullivan may have invented and perfected the patter-song with that Model Major-General ditty but Noel Coward was no slouch with his Mad Dogs and Englishmen number. Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun – as do tourists here in Hollywood. No one else does. No one’s that crazy. The only pleasant time of day here is just after dawn, when the sun is just edging up over Griffith Observatory out east. The air is light. There’s black coffee and the morning paper. After that, hide.

It was even worse this year. These last days of August in Los Angeles brought record heat – one hundred and rising fast each day at noon, with the brutal sun turning the air into a sepia photochemical goop, in the fourth year of a drought so severe we may have to fold up the state and call it a day. This year, in late August, you’d be crazy to walk out your door after nine in the morning. The only ones out there are the tourists from Iowa ready to slit each other’s throats by early afternoon – because the corollary to the mad dogs and Englishmen hypothesis – that some folks (Englishmen) are inherently crazy – is that the heat itself drives you crazy.

It does. Raymond Chandler opened one of his short stories with this:

There was a desert wind blowing that night. It was one of those hot dry Santa Ana’s that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands’ necks. Anything can happen. You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge.

It’s like that out here in late August. It may be like that everywhere in late August. Anything can happen. It’s the heat. Disregard anything anyone says in late August. In particular, disregard anything politicians say, and in particular, disregard Scott Walker:

It’s not just the southern border: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says it is “legitimate” to discuss building a wall separating the United States from Canada, as well.

The Republican presidential contender said the idea of a northern border has come up while he has campaigned in New Hampshire.

In an interview for NBC’s “Meet the Press” available online, Walker said his tough talk to securing the borders and enforcing U.S. laws extends to the 5,525-mile Canadian border as well.

He wants to do Donald Trump one better, one wall better, specifically, but he’s floundering:

He ran into trouble two weeks ago after GOP front-runner Donald Trump proposed repealing the Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate that children born in the United States automatically become citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

Walker first said he favored Trump’s idea of repealing birthright citizenship. He backed off that stance days later, telling a reporter that he hasn’t taken a position. And then last Sunday, he said that he isn’t advocating any changes to laws on the books – including the Fourteenth Amendment.

Despite taking three different positions in the course of a week, Walker insisted Sunday on NBC, his stance has been consistent.

As for this new Big Northern Wall, the Canadians were not happy with the idea:

That kind of chatter – as idle as it might be – can make Canadians jittery given that more than one-third of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product involves trade with the U.S., and that the tightened border after the 9-11 attacks caused a ripple-effect that still hasn’t completely subsided.

Canada’s defense minister weighed in when asked about Walker’s remarks Sunday, although he said he hadn’t yet heard them. In response, Jason Kenney said Canada would protect what he called the largest bilateral trading relationship in economic history.

“Of course we would vigorously oppose any thickening of the border,” he told an Ottawa news conference.

Trump has pissed off the Mexican government. Walker has pissed off the Canadian government. It’s been that kind of August, but Doug Mataconis adds some cold common sense:

The odds that such a proposal would get past Congress and the decades-old international agreements that govern the relationship between the United States and Canada are extremely small. Additionally, even if one were to concede Walker’s contention that the Canadian border is some of kind of security threat, his proposal is quite obviously not a practical solution to that problem. For one thing, the border in question runs well over 5,000 miles and includes not only the border between the Continental United States and Canada, but also the border between Canada and Alaska. A good portion of this border region consists of highly inhospitable areas in which it would be entirely impossible to construct any part of the barrier. The border also cuts through Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario, and I’m not aware of any viable way to construct a water barrier.

Yeah, well – it’s August. The heat got to him, and it got to Chris Christie:

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Saturday that if he were elected president he would combat illegal immigration by creating a system to track foreign visitors the way FedEx tracks packages.

Mr. Christie, who is far back in the pack of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, said at a campaign event in New Hampshire that he would ask the chief executive of FedEx, Frederick W. Smith, to devise the tracking system.

The idea here is one that’s been around since the Reagan years, that the government can never do things right, ever, but the private sector can do things right, and always does:

“At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane,” Mr. Christie told the crowd in Laconia, N.H. “Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them.”

He added: “We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in.”

For those who believe the government should be run like a business, and by businessmen, this must have sounded wonderful, but for this:

Mr. Christie did not say specifically how a system would track people the same way packages are tracked by FedEx, which scans a bar code on the package at each step of its delivery. A FedEx spokeswoman declined to comment on Mr. Christie’s remarks.

Heather Parton suggests why:

FedEx bar codes all its packages and puts them through scanners everywhere they go. Is he suggesting that we tattoo bar-codes on humans and put them through scanners everywhere they go? I don’t know what else he could be talking about.

There’s a history of tattooing people to keep track of them. Not a good history.

Dorian De Wind at The Moderate Voice adds this:

Using a barcode scanning system for people might be problematic. First, where would you stamp the barcode? On the forehead? Nah, too reminiscent of the Yellow Star “method.”

Second, how would you continuously scan the barcode? With drones perhaps? Nah, too costly, plus “real Americans” would probably object to such collateral invasion of their privacy.

A much better system would be one that implants chips in our visitors and tracks them using satellite GPS. Much more reliable, accurate, and hopefully less reminiscent of bad-things-past.

Which will it be? Christie has obviously spent too much time in the midday sun, and the blogger BooMan states the obvious:

Do you think there is anything even mildly offensive about saying that you’d like to treat undocumented people living in our country exactly like FedEx treats packages? It is stuff like this that makes minority outreach so unsuccessful for Republicans. Because, you know, the rest of us can hear you when you think you’re just talking to your base.

That happens a lot, but to be fair to Scott Walker, Ben Carson wants to seal all the nation’s borders:

We have laws and we need to be able to pay attention to our laws and what I have said consistently is we need to seal our borders – but not just the southern border, the northern border, the Pacific border, the Atlantic border, every border.

We go to full lockdown, and Carson has also called for employing armed drones to snuff out drug cartels that may have hidden caves on our soil. El Paso becomes Yemen. We simply wipe out drug cartels, not terrorists, in this case – and we don’t have to make a case or arrest and try anyone. We just wipe them out.

Carson may need to think this through. The president, through secret executive orders, bypassing law enforcement and the judicial system, and the law, ordering death to certain parties, on American soil, might set a bad precedent. Where would it stop? There are those who are a bit queasy with Obama secretly ordering the death, by drone strike, of American citizens on foreign soil, even if they have gone all ISIS on us. Few feel that way, but the precedent is troubling.

Still, all of this is August-talk. It’s the “Summer of Trump” and all that. Things will cool down in September, unless something else is going on here, and the fetching conservative cutie S. E. Cupp says that something else is liberal political correctness:

Thanks to unrelenting demands by the left for increasingly preposterous levels of political correctness over the past decade, people are simply fed up. Trump survives – nay, thrives! – because he is seen as the antidote, bravely and unimpeachably standing athwart political correctness.

The new era of liberal political correctness – in which colleges designate “free speech zones,” words like “American” and “mother” are considered discriminatory, and children are suspended from school for firing make-believe weapons – has reached critical mass. If not for the loony sensitivities foisted upon us by the left, someone like Trump would be immediately dismissed as unprofessional and unserious, an incoherent blurter. Instead, he’s the equally extreme response to extreme correctness – if everything is offensive in Liberalville, then nothing will be offensive in Trumpland.

So it’s not the heat, but Ed Kilgore isn’t so sure:

Is that the source of all this hysteria? Conservative media accounts of random college speech code incidents and the occasional dumb move by a school principal? Something that affects maybe a tenth of one percent of the population? That has conservatives backing a deliberately offensive celebrity like Trump and a conspiracy theorist like Carson?

I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. The Trump supporters and proto-Trump supporters I know are upset by things like having to listen to Spanish-language messages on customer service lines, not being able to call women “chicks” without someone frowning at them, and having to stop telling racist jokes at work. That’s what “political correctness” is the code for: having to worry about the sensitivities of people who were invisible or submissive not that very long ago.

If Cupp is right and I’m not, then let’s all cooperate in convincing Republican politicians and conservative pundits to stop using the term “political correctness” and come right and tell us what the beef is about. Is it really “trigger warning” requirements at scattered liberal arts colleges? Or is it this whole new world we’re in where people have to question old habits? When Ben Carson calls inhibitions about torturing terrorism suspects “political correctness,” it’s pretty clear he’s yet another apostle for the Church of the Day Before Yesterday, when America was never wrong and dissenters kept their mouths shut.

Kevin Drum adds this:

I could do with a little less speech policing from all sides, frankly. It gets a little tiresome sometimes. Still, the truth is that Ed is right: for the vast, vast majority of us, it leaves our lives entirely unaffected as long as you can avoid flat-out slurs against women, blacks, gays, Jews, and so forth. Really, that’s about 99 percent of it. Is that really so hard?

Maybe it is, or maybe it’s just the August sun, frying politicians’ brains. Nancy LeTourneau says they’ll pay for that:

We’ve all been witness lately to the fact that Donald Trump is free to suggest that Mexican immigrants are criminals and racists. He’s even free to run for president on a platform of “deport ’em all.” And Ben Carson is free to suggest that the United States should discard things like the Geneva Conventions and torture prisoners of war.

When people complain about political correctness, they are suggesting that they want the freedom to say obnoxious hateful things. But they have always been free to do so. Just don’t expect the rest of us to be quiet when they do. In other words, expect it to backfire.

Perhaps it will, but elsewhere Drum has some interesting questions:

The Democrats have such a weak bench this year that there’s literally only one truly plausible candidate in the entire field. And this isn’t because Hillary Clinton is so widely beloved: there’s just no one else around who seems to have the usual bona fides to run for president. Hell, even the sitting vice president, usually a shoo-in to run, has a public persona that’s a little too goofy to make him a strong candidate.

In other words, there are hardly any decent candidates in the entire country. What the hell is going on?

And there’s this:

Is there anyone out there who could be the Democratic equivalent of Donald Trump? There was some inane blather earlier this month comparing him to Bernie Sanders, but that was always pretty preposterous. Bernie Sanders is a serious, longtime politician. He may be too extreme for you, but he’s not a buffoon. 

More specifically: Is it even possible that someone like Trump – no political experience, buffoonish, populist, boorish – could ever make a big impact in a Democratic primary? It’s never happened before, but then, it’s never happened quite this way in the Republican primary either.

Something odd is going on here. Drum says he’s glad August is almost over, and Nancy LeTourneau sees this madness ending:

If you have any doubts about that – just look at the September calendar. Congress comes back into session this month and right off the bat they’ll have to tackle a vote on the Iran deal (it looks like Boehner will also throw in a vote in the House to block funding to Planned Parenthood – but since that already failed in the Senate, it’s all for show until government shutdown time arrives). The conversation about the Iran deal has shifted from whether President Obama will have to use his veto pen to whether Republicans will have enough votes to override a filibuster. The countdown continues with Senator Merkley signing on to support the deal today.

Right on the heels of that, Pope Francis comes to America and addresses a Joint Session of Congress:

That will provide quite a shift in the conversation. Of course we can expect a lot of his visit to focus on the need to act on climate change. But the Pope has also been outspoken on the issue of income inequality as well as immigration reform. He was instrumental in forging the opening between the United States and Cuba and has spoken out in support of the agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons.

Then add this:

Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, said the pope’s Sept. 23 visit will mark an important moment not only for Catholics but for all Americans.

“Pope Francis has breathed new life into what I believe is the central mission of our faith: Catholic social doctrine,” Biden said in a statement to The Associated Press. Invoking key elements of Obama’s agenda, Biden added that Francis “has become a moral rudder for the world on some of the most important issues of our time, from inequality to climate change.”

LeTourneau says it doesn’t end there:

The day after the Pope departs marks the opening session of the General Assembly at the United Nations. Scheduled to speak on the same day are: President Obama, Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China. No doubt that the eyes of the world will be on that stage.

While all of that is happening, Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner will be working on a way to pass a federal budget and avoid a government shutdown. They have until the end of September to do that.

Hold onto your hats. Things are about to get very interesting. And before long, we might be asking, “Donald who?”

At that point August will really be over. The “Summer of Trump” will be over, but, at Salon, Jack Mirkinson says think again:

Every network has given over hours and hours of precious airtime to cover even the most minuscule rantings from the GOP frontrunner – and that’s before we’ve even gotten to the endless interviews they’ve done with Trump, nearly all of them over the phone. If Trump came in liquid form, every television executive in America would inject him.

It has gotten so out of hand that even Trump himself is mocking the media.

“Every time I go on television it’s gotta be live!” he said at a recent Alabama rally that was being covered on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. “How come it always has to be live? Why don’t they just cover me like anybody else where they go the next day and they show little clips? Every time I speak it has to be live. It’s ridiculous, but it’s okay.”

The guy is just too addictive:

Trump is a celebrity waging a campaign that is almost entirely made up of attacks on other famous people. He’s the perfect candidate for our ADHD age. It may be more responsible to give Trump a bit of a rest, but that won’t lead to higher ratings or more page views. For now, Trump and the media have formed an unholy sort of alliance, a cynical partnership of mutual convenience. He gives them numbers, and in return they give him what amounts to millions of dollars of free publicity. Everyone’s a winner.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from this sorry spectacle, it is this: The next time you see some millionaire pundit throw his hands up and say that, as much as he’d like to cover the issues, he has to go where the public mood is, remember how some of our top news outlets are handling the presidential election. When CNN decides that it is more important for you to listen to a former reality show contestant talk about Donald Trump than to revisit the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, CNN is making a very particular choice. When every single network is nothing but Trump all the time, they are making very particular choices too. The same, really, goes for all of us in the media. We can’t get enough of Trump.

That means it will be August forever. The heat makes your nerves jump and your skin itch. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands’ necks. And mad dogs and Englishmen, and politicians, go out in the midday sun. Anything can happen in perpetual August. Damn. Global warming will be the death of us.

Posted in Republican Extremism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adaptive Christianity

Pope Francis will address a joint session of Congress on September 24, the first time the head of the Roman Catholic Church has ever done that. House Speaker John Boehner, the Republican from Ohio, himself a Catholic, invited him, without thinking things through. Sure, the Catholic Church has always opposed abortion, as no more than murder, and contraception too – so the Church was a useful ally in the Republican efforts to get rid of Obamacare. But this new Pope has issued an encyclical on global warming – it’s real and it’s every Christian’s moral duty to do something about it. God does not approve of us ruining the planet, for profit. He put a lot of work into it. So this is a difficulty for Republicans. In fact, the new Pope has been saying it’s time to ease up on obsessing about abortion and contraception, and on demonizing gays, and on deciding who’s got the doctrine just right and who should be shunned and ridiculed for not being angry enough about this minor doctrinal issue or that. There are more important things, or so the new Pope has said:

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.

Oh shit! This guy is attacking everything the Republicans have been saying for generations. Sure, Catholic social theory always demanded universal healthcare, but this goes even further:

How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

This guy sounds like Obama, particularly since he sees a need for state action, not just vague trust in the big-heartedness of the powerful. He’s all for economic regulation and democratic supervision of the capitalist system, where the people, in general, get to curb the actions of the rich few:

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.

Yep, the new Pope recommends vigilance for the common good, perhaps as with Dodd-Frank and the new Consumer Protection Bureau, which the Republicans have done their best to destroy, but there is such a thing as common decency, and he’s not seeing a whole lot of that:

In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

The Pope thinks we should deify the Deity, not the market. There’s only one Invisible Hand, and it’s not the one Adam Smith was talking about. Talk of the highly moral Makers versus the lazy immoral Takers doesn’t impress him either. This guy is coming to Washington to say the unthinkable – Jesus was not a Republican – and this should be interesting. For at least thirty years, give or take, Americans have been told that He was. Most Americans shrugged – whatever. This was a given. Democrats talked about solving problems. Republicans asked what Jesus would do. So what else is new?

That’s not to say there weren’t some difficult moments. In 2010, Bill O’Reilly reminded all Americans that it says right there in the Bible that “the Lord helps those who help themselves” – so Jesus really thought stuff like unemployment insurance and welfare and food stamps and all the rest were immoral, because charity creates a “moral hazard” for those who receive it. That would mean that when Jesus said that “the poor are always with us” it’s obvious that He was simply exasperated with such losers, who can’t ever seem to get their act together.

That devastating quote from the Bible that O’Reilly thought he found caused quite a stir – because there are no such words in the Bible. Stephen Colbert reminded O’Reilly that Bill was actually quoting Ben Franklin. In subsequent interviews, O’Reilly sputtered that that’s what was clearly implied in the Bible, if you thought about it. O’Reilly also protested that he was a fine Irish lad, who had gone to Catholic schools all his life, and the nuns had taught him that kindness, which the Church calls Charity, can ruin everything.

This was not Bill O’Reilly’s finest moment, but the moment passed. Equilibrium was restored. Americans knew what they knew. Democrats were the practical secular people, talking about fairness and common decency and common sense. They don’t talk about God. We can solve this stuff. Republicans were the highly moral people, talking about God’s wrath, and about what must be done because God says so. Sometimes that means disregarding fairness and common decency and common sense, because there are certain people – gays and the poor and the unlucky – who must be shunned and shamed and marginalized. Yes, that’s unfair. So be it.

Fine – Jesus was a Republican once again and we can expect the Republicans to scold the Pope in late September – with sad regret of course. But that doesn’t solve the current problem, which Frank Bruni explains here:

Let me get this straight. If I want the admiration and blessings of the most flamboyant, judgmental Christians in America, I should marry three times, do a queasy-making amount of sexual boasting, verbally degrade women, talk trash about pretty much everyone else while I’m at it, encourage gamblers to hemorrhage their savings in casinos bearing my name and crow incessantly about how much money I’ve amassed?

Well, this seems to work for Donald Trump:

Polls show him to be the preferred candidate among not just all Republican voters but also the party’s vocal evangelical subset. He’s more beloved than Mike Huckabee, a former evangelical pastor, or Ted Cruz, an evangelical pastor’s son, or Scott Walker, who said during the recent Republican debate: “It’s only by the blood of Jesus Christ that I’ve been redeemed.”

Scott Walker is getting a bit desperate these days but Bruni sees “the selective and incoherent religiosity” of this crowd:

What’s different and fascinating about the Trump worship is that he doesn’t even try that hard for a righteous facade – for Potemkin piety. Sure, he speaks of enthusiastic churchgoing, and he’s careful to curse Planned Parenthood and to insist that matrimony be reserved for heterosexuals as demonstrably inept at it as he is.

But beyond that? He just about runs the table on the seven deadly sins. He personifies greed, embodies pride, he radiates lust. Wrath is covered by his anti-immigrant, anti-“losers” rants, and if we interpret gluttony to include big buildings and not just Big Macs, he’s a glutton through and through. That leaves envy and sloth. I’m betting that he harbors plenty of the former, though I’ll concede that he exhibits none of the latter.

But they love him anyway, and Bruni is puzzled:

Maybe it’s Trump’s jingoism they adore. They venerated Ronald Reagan though he’d divorced, remarried and spent much of his career in the godless clutch of Hollywood.

Maybe their fealty to Trump is payback for his donations to conservative religious groups.

Or maybe his pompadour has mesmerized them. It could, in the right wind, be mistaken for a halo.

I’m grasping at straws, because there’s no sense in the fact that many of the people who most frequently espouse the Christian spirit then proceed to vilify immigrants, demonize minorities and line up behind a candidate who’s a one-man masterclass in such misanthropy.

From Trump’s Twitter account gushes an endless stream of un-Christian rudeness, and he was at it again on Monday night, retweeting someone else’s denigration of Kelly as a “bimbo.” Shouldn’t he be turning the other cheek?

Bruni doesn’t get it:

I must not be watching the same campaign that his evangelical fans are, because I don’t see someone interested in serving God. I see someone interested in being God.

Heather Parton at Salon is less flippant:

In South Carolina this week, Trump explained that evangelicals love him, and he loves them. And he loves the Bible more than anything, even his own book, “The Art of the Deal,” which he loves very, very much. He declined to identify his favorite Bible passages, because he says the Bible is so intensely personal to him, but he was more forthcoming awhile back when pollster Frank Luntz asked him if he’d ever asked God for forgiveness.

“I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t…” Trump said. “When I drink my little wine – which is about the only wine I drink – and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed. I think in terms of ‘let’s go on and let’s make it right.'”

Who needs God’s forgiveness? He has work to do.

Even that didn’t turn the evangelicals away, but something else may be going on here:

According to writer Amy Sullivan, who covers the religion beat, evangelicals are not that different from other Republicans, in that they are perpetually let down and disappointed by their leaders, but more than anything are just looking for a winner after eight years of living in a liberal horror movie. Apparently, they are just as mad as hell as the rest of the GOP base and Lord knows, Trump is the one who’s most effectively channeling that rage.

But this article in The Daily Beast, by Betsy Woodruff, shows that Trump has surprisingly been cultivating the religious right for several years, making substantial donations to various Christian organizations and reaching out to Christian leaders and groups. All the way back in 2012, he spoke at Liberty University, where Jerry Falwell Jr. called him “one of the great visionaries of our time” and praised him for his leadership and political skills in “singlehandedly forcing President Obama to release his birth certificate.”

Parton can only offer this:

The evangelicals are very upset with the status quo and like the fact that Trump isn’t taking any guff from the GOP establishment. And rather than thinking he might be wobbly on the issues they care about, they seem to be impressed with the only kind of evolution they believe in: the evolution from pro-choice to pro-life, which Trump has embraced with the fervor of the recently converted. This stands in sharp contrast with their concerns about Scott Walker, who has been a committed evangelical his entire life and yet has been put on notice by the leadership for having very slightly deviated from approved religious-right rhetoric.

And there’s another possible factor:

They actually appreciate it when someone respects their power enough to pander to them and pretend that they believe something they don’t. Perhaps the conservative Christians in particular see religious hypocrisy in terms of the old cliché that it’s “the tribute vice pays to virtue,” and feel that a blatant phony like Trump might actually be more likely to follow through on his promises to them, whereas someone like Walker took them for granted.

And there’s this:

Trump announced yesterday in South Carolina that he’s going to partner with Cruz on a big event in Washington next month to stop the Iran nuclear agreement. This agreement is loathed by virtually all Republicans for a variety of reasons, but the Christian right hates it because they believe it is bad for Israel, which is central to their political involvement.

Israel is Jesus Land after all, but Parton is worried:

It always feels as though Trump is winging it, running off at the mouth, not knowing what he’s going to say and basically just riding the wave without any idea where it’s going to crash. What this religious outreach shows, though, is that Trump has been strategizing this presidential run much more consciously than perhaps anyone realized. It’s hard to know what’s more disconcerting – that Trump is winning because he’s crazy, or that he’s winning because he’s crazy like a fox.

As for winging it, there’s Trump’s interview with Mark Halperin and John Heilemann:

I’m wondering what one or two of your most favorite Bible verses are and why.

Well, I wouldn’t want to get into it because to me that’s very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible it’s very personal. So I don’t want to get into verses, I don’t want to get into—the Bible means a lot to me, but I don’t want to get into specifics.

Even to cite a verse that you like?

No, I don’t want to do that.

Are you an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy?

Uh, probably… equal. I think it’s just an incredible… the whole Bible is an incredible… I joke… very much so. They always hold up The Art of the Deal, I say it’s my second favorite book of all time. But, uh, I just think the Bible is just something very special.

At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum sees this:

We’ve seen this shtick from Trump before, of course. He’s stunningly ignorant, and routinely refuses to answer whenever someone asks about a factual detail more than an inch below the surface. Needless to say, he refuses because he doesn’t know, but he always pretends it’s for some other reason. “I don’t want to insult anyone by naming names,” he’ll say, as if this isn’t his entire stock in trade. Or, in this case, “It’s personal,” as if he’s a guy who leads a deep personal life that he never talks about.

The interesting thing is that this shtick also shows how lazy he is. It’s been evident for several days that someone was eventually going to ask him for his favorite Bible verse, but he couldn’t be bothered to bone up even a little bit in order to have one on tap. … Even when he says something that’s going to raise obvious questions the next day, he never bothers to learn anything about the subject. I guess he figures he’s got people for that.

Of course, there is an advantage to handling things this way. By shutting down the Bible talk completely, he guarantees he’ll never have to talk about it again.

That works. This doesn’t work:

Donald Trump – who says the Bible is his favorite book but is unwilling to cite his favorite verses – is now facing scrutiny for his church-going record. Marble Collegiate Church, a church in Manhattan which Trump has claimed he attends, told CNN that Trump is “not an active member.”

Earlier this week, when Trump was asked by reporters about his religious practices, he said, “I’ve just had great experiences at church, whether it is Sunday school or whatever it may be, but now I go to Marble Collegiate Church.”

He also said he was “Presbyterian Protestant.” The denomination of Marble Collegiate Church is a Reformed Church in America, according to CNN.

“Donald Trump has had a longstanding history with Marble Collegiate Church, where his parents were active members for years and one of his children was baptized. However, as he indicates, he is a Presbyterian, and is not an active member of Marble,” the church’s statement to CNN said.

They may forgive him that, and at the New Republic, Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig sees this:

Everything that might register as an obvious lack of affinity with evangelical values – his inability to name a favorite Bible verse, his open Christmas-and-Easter attendance patterns, his ranking of the Bible as only a smidgen better than his own book – might be coming off as a sight better than the same old GOP pitch. Before joining his campaign, Trump’s national co-chairman Sam Clovis wrote in an email that “Trump left him with questions about Trump’s moral center and his foundational beliefs” – adding that Trump’s “comments reveal no foundation in Christ, which is a big deal.'” And it might be, but Trump is brazenly straightforward about the whole affair, routinely supplying very little religious window dressing for what is primarily a revanchist campaign against the un-American, the un-patriotic, and the effeminate.

Meanwhile, Trump’s competitors for evangelical attention have compromised their credibility with Christian voters. In September of last year, Ted Cruz inexplicably took pot shots at Middle Eastern Christians gathered to protest violence against their countrymen because, in Cruz’s view, they were not sufficiently supportive of Israel. Mike Huckabee has busied himself making off-color remarks about the Holocaust and ingratiating himself in the most public way possible with the Duggar family, now marred by a child sex abuse cover-up scandal along with confessions of infidelity. Trump, for all his filthy dealings, has at least never painted his deeds with a veneer of Christian righteousness.

Trump never gets specific, which keeps him out of trouble, and he gets the big picture:

He has been a thoroughgoing antagonist of President Obama, who is in some evangelical imaginations the anti-Christ; he has a certain machismo, which appeals to evangelicals disgruntled with the ‘feminized’ state of our culture; he’s somehow fused issues of religious liberty in America (think lawsuits over wedding cakes) with issues of religious persecution abroad (think ISIS slaughtering Christians and Yazidis).

And Bruenig offers this:

If I had to surmise which subset of the evangelical category Trump has struck a chord with, I would guess it would be that intransigent Pat Robertson crowd, the evangelicals who are perpetually dismayed with the Republican establishment Trump is now confounding. Does this mean they won’t fall in line when the eventual Republican nominee is chosen? Probably not – but between then and now there is plenty of time for cathartic polling.

These are, then, political power struggles, informed by religion. There’s actually very little theology involved. That was settled long ago – Jesus was a Republican. Maybe he wasn’t, but He was adapted to their purposes, or adopted as a mascot – and that means Trump will do just fine here. He understands power politics, even if he’s a bit hazy on theology. The only question now is how these people will handle Pope Francis’ little chat with America in late September. Perhaps they’ll sic Donald Trump on him. The two of them can discuss what’s moral and what’s not. And then Donald Trump can turn to Pope Francis and say “You’re fired!”

It could happen.

Posted in Donald Trump, Evangelicals for Trump | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

America’s Women

From 1969 through 1974 Israel was fine with Golda Meir. From 1979 through 1990 the Brits were fine with Margaret Thatcher. Since 2005 the Germans have been fine with Angela Merkel. A woman can lead a nation. It’s no big deal, but we haven’t tried it yet, and those three ran for office and then governed as gender-neutral. The issues were national security and the economy. They weren’t champions for women – they wanted to keep things from falling apart. Women didn’t vote for them out of solidarity. Women voted for them for practical reasons. Each could do the job.

We haven’t got the hang of this yet. Hillary Clinton, the first woman with a reasonable chance to become president, knows we haven’t got the hang of it. America cannot be gender-neutral quite yet. Too many Americans see women as pretty little things, all sweetness and fluff, or as repulsive ball-busting dykes who refuse to act like a lady – as they should. Even many women feel that way, so Hillary Clinton has had to make adjustments, as she did in her 2008 campaign and as she is doing now. Be a policy wonk, but be soft and friendly about it. Be warm and open, but show that you’re tough as nails underneath. Show that you’re as severe and bloodthirsty as any guy talking about ISIS or Iran – but that you’ll bring a woman’s clear compassion to the situation.

This is an impossible balancing act. That may be why Hillary Clinton seems to have shifted to being a champion for women. More than half the voters are women. She can get their vote, and win the presidency, by addressing their specific issues, not national security and the economy and all the rest. America isn’t ready for that – so play the women’s issues. There are enough votes there. Cause a stir.

That’s what she did:

The weekly firestorm in the 2016 presidential campaign was lit Thursday in Ohio by Hillary Clinton when she likened GOP candidates’ views on women to those of terrorists.

“What an obscene person,” was the reaction of Ohio Republican Chairman Matt Borges.

Ohio Right to Life’s Michael Gonidakis tweeted: “If HRC can’t tell difference b/t pro-life supporters & murderous rapists in ISIS it’s no wonder she messed up Benghazi so badly!”

Republican National Committee press secretary Allison Moore called for an immediate apology “for her inflammatory rhetoric.” Moore said, “For Hillary Clinton to equate her political opponents to terrorists is a new low for her flailing campaign.”

No, this is not a new low. It’s an attempt to grab the votes she needs by shifting to issues where she doesn’t have to be not quite a man and not quite a woman day in and day out. There’s no ambiguity here:

While saying “this election can’t be a race to the bottom” in her first official Ohio campaign speech this year, Clinton took shots at Ohio Gov. John Kasich as well as other GOP presidential hopefuls for their anti-abortion stances and calls to defund Planned Parenthood.

“I would like these Republican candidates to look the mom in the eye who caught her breast cancer early because she was able to get a screening for cancer, or the teenager who didn’t get pregnant because she had access to contraception, or anyone who’s ever been protected by an HIV test,” Clinton told several hundred supporters at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“Now, extreme views about women? We expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world. But it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be president of the United States.”

Clinton’s swipe at Kasich – she didn’t mention him by name – came in response to the 2013 state budget bill he signed that included a ban on state-funded rape-crisis centers counseling women about abortion…

If no one will take her seriously on all the other stuff – America is not Israel or Britain or Germany – there are these women’s issues, and women decide presidential elections – and the Republicans have made themselves vulnerable. Deal with it.

One of them did deal with it:

Donald Trump pledged Thursday that supporting women’s health will be “a very major thing” in his presidential campaign.

“I will take care of women’s health and women’s health issues better than anybody and far better than Hillary Clinton, who doesn’t have a clue,” he told reporters after an afternoon rally here.

What was he saying? She’s a woman and what does a woman know about such things? That’s an odd argument, but Republicans know they have to deal with this:

The Republican, campaigning in the Bible Belt, also slammed Jeb Bush for saying recently that he’s “not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues.” The former Florida governor later said he misspoke.

But Trump said it’s a window into what he really thinks.

“That was a terrible thing for him to say,” he said of Bush. “I cherish women, and I say it all the time. I will take a care of women. Women under my administration will be taken care of, not like Jeb Bush; what he said was a disgrace.”

Bush’s campaign was having none of that:

“Mr. Trump is trying to overcompensate for the fact that he knows Jeb has experience as a successful pro-life conservative Governor who funded women’s health initiatives, while Trump has spent his life as a liberal New York socialite who has supported partial birth abortion and socialized health care,” Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said in an email. “Governor Bush remains committed to defunding Planned Parenthood and ensuring those dollars instead to the many quality women’s healthcare programs across the nation.”

Yeah, but Donald Trump cherishes women, whatever that means.

Actually that means a lot, as MSNBC’s Aliyah Frumin explains here:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s public life has long been littered with demeaning, sexist remarks about women. And for just as long, he has refused to apologize. But so far, potential female voters aren’t running away from the billionaire real estate mogul’s 2016 candidacy.

In fact, even after his epic debate exchange with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly – in which Kelly asked the GOPer about calling women he dislikes “fat pigs,” “slobs” and “disgusting animals” – and then later suggesting that Kelly asked those questions because she was menstruating – Trump’s popularity among female voters did not take a hit, according to a Gallup survey. In fact, 29% of female voters viewed Trump favorably before the debate compared to 30% the week after.

Trump seems to be beating Clinton at her own new game:

The former reality TV show host continued to jab Kelly on Monday, engaging in a vindictive tweet-storm during Kelly’s show, resulting in Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes demanding that Trump apologize. But so far, none of it seems to be hurting Trump. And looking at Republican women specifically, while Trump had a lower favorability among that group compared to Republican men (by a 50% to 59% margin), that gender gap in favorability was typical among GOP candidates.

Frumin is not sure what to make of this:

Not only does Trump say sexist things, but his invariably macho stance on everything from foreign policy to immigration is the sort of testosterone-fueled bravado that typically rubs many female voters the wrong way. But with Trump, apparently, that’s not the case.

Take, for example, the battle against the terrorist group known as ISIS. Trump said his plan to beat ISIS involves “boots on the ground” and to “knock the hell out of them.” Meanwhile, according to Pew Research, there’s a 14-point gender gap when it comes to favoring ground troops in Iraq and Syria, with 51% of men being in favor and just 37% of women.

Even so, his numbers keep rising with Republican women, so Frumin looks into this:

“I like that he’s not politically correct,” said Michelle Letner, a 48-year-old commercial cleaner from Medina, Ohio, who donated $225 to Team Trump. On the derogatory names Kelly brought up during the debate, Letner – who said she’s never donated to a candidate in the past – said, “I have no problem with a man being a man. I like him because he’s real. He’s saying it like it is. If you want to be treated like a lady, act like a lady.”

Susan Speros, the CEO of a business technology company in Savannah, Georgia, who donated $500 to the campaign, said she too wasn’t concerned with Trump’s remarks. “Everyone needs to take their offended-hats off and needs to worry about what’s happening in this country,” like the economy and national security, she said. “I think Trump is a smart man and what he doesn’t know, he’ll surround himself with smart people and he’ll get the job done.”

Lori Pesta, creator of the Women for Donald Trump Facebook page – which has nearly 2,000 likes – is going as far to organize a “national women for Trump” day across the country on Oct. 18. “We want to show our support that women are behind Donald Trump, as are men as well … I think Donald Trump is very pro-women,” said the Atlanta resident.

He is? This is odd, or maybe it isn’t:

Jennifer Lawless, the director of American University’s Women & Politics Institute, argues that conservative women’s support for Trump is understandable. After all, “the records of other Republican candidates are just as half-full on women’s interests.” She also pointed to Trump’s soaring rhetoric on women when he’s pressed – declarations like “I cherish women” and “I would be the best for women.” Lawless said, “It’s vague, but it may mitigate concerns people may have.”

That’ll do. Everyone is vague. “Cherish” is a nice word, and there’s this:

The support may also stem from voters’ overall dissatisfaction with Washington, D.C. politics and Trump pitching himself as an outsider. “I think it’s frustration with the status quo,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “I do think he’s tapping into this general frustration and anger that government isn’t working and it’s not getting things done.”

And “even though his macho tone might turn some people off, what they perceive as authenticity may counteract that,” added Lawless.

That’s the argument that he’s a pig, but at least he’s honest about it, and honesty is everything, but Frumin comes back to the intentional vagueness of Trump’s positions:

In many ways, he’s all hat and no cattle – talking a big game about being “the best for women” without offering any details, policy-wise, on how he’d actually do that. When recently asked about those issues on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said, “As far as questions like that … I’m not going to do it on this show and I don’t want to discuss it on this show. I want to discuss those questions at a debate. But all I can say on women’s issues and women’s health issues, there will be nobody better than Donald Trump.”

That’s it? That’s it, and Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick provides some perspective:

By almost all accounts, 2012 was the year of the woman, as female voters opted for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney 56-44. For a while there, all we seemed to be talking about was the way in which women would not be talked down to again.

A series of remarkable gaffes by various GOP politicians that evinced a lack of concern about basic women’s health issues aided and abetted that effort. The various stupidisms of the 2012 campaign ranged from the assertion by Missouri Rep. Todd Akin that “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” to Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s fervent belief that pregnancy from “rape … is something that God intended to happen.” Wisconsin state Rep. Roger Rivard thoughtfully opined that “some girls rape easy,” and Mitt Romney’s infamous claim that he was in possession of “binders full of women” probably became the single most notorious episode, because it signified what a gender gaffe truly is: an inadvertent blurting out of a statement you secretly believe to be wholly true.

The attendant outcry from those gaffes led to some significant spinning and walking back, and the system seemed to finally be in perfect equipoise: GOP men said dopey things about women, women punched back, and GOP men retreated to their man caves of bewilderment to await 2016.

But nothing changed:

The genius of Donald Trump’s run for the White House is that he has almost single-handedly upended the national gender stupidity/umbrage continuum. We have, seemingly without warning, reached the point in time at which when Trump says something hateful and misogynistic, nobody evinces any surprise, he declines to apologize, and nothing changes in the polls.

This new dynamic has stupefied Trump’s critics on the left, with the Onion putting it all pretty bluntly in a headline that reads: “Female Trump Supporters Just Feel More Comfortable with GOP Candidate Who’s Openly Horrible to Them.”

She notes the puzzlement of MSNBC’s Aliyah Frumin and shares it:

I confess to be equally baffled by the meh-reaction by GOP women to Trump’s decades of Pretty Woman–style musings on gender, including global statements about women being manipulative craven vixens who outsmart men largely by way of their extremely large boobs. (One tiny gem, from his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback: “Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye – or perhaps another body part.”)

Of late, poor Lindsey Graham has been reduced to sputtering that “the way he attacks women is going to be a death blow to the future of our party,” as he sags further and further behind Trump in the polls. Perhaps Trump’s greatest gift, as a steaming misogynist, is that he is basically always the drunk guy in the bar slurring “nice tits.” Serious women don’t take him seriously, and everyone else just thinks he’s deranged. Worse, he is the unrepentant drunk in the bar; he’s not sorry for calling women pigs or gold-diggers. Unlike the Romneys or the Mourdocks, he doesn’t let himself get “bullied” by politically correct women. He just sends them mail telling them they’re ugly.

Lithwick does, however, recommend Amanda Marcotte on how trashing women and defending doing just that has become a way of life in some conservative circles:

Conservative media and Fox News in particular have spent years – decades, if you count talk radio – training their audiences to believe that exhortations against sexism and racism are nothing but the “political correctness” police trying to kill your good time. Indeed, one reason that Trump was able to get so much attention for his presidential run in the first place is that Fox has spent years building him up, knowing that their audience enjoys vicariously needling imagined liberals and feminists with his loud-mouthed insult comic act.

As Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan recently explained in a feature piece about the conservative website Twitchy, there are entire sectors of the conservative media dedicated to getting the audiences to spend all day and night trying to piss off liberals, believing themselves to be courageous freedom fighters against the P.C. police. Women, in particular, are favorite targets. There’s apparently no getting tired of the pleasure of feeling naughty because you say mean things about women and racial minorities for conservative audiences.

So one thing leads to another and Megyn Kelly gets slammed:

You can’t tell people, day in and day out, that nothing is more fun than putting some mouthy broad in her place and then get upset when they continue to think that it’s fun, even when the mouthy broad is one of yours.

“Bossy” women are treated, in conservative media, like the great Darth Vaders of the world who need to be harassed and resisted and abused at all costs. Of this, there can be no doubt. Michelle Obama started a program to encourage exercise and healthy eating, and conservative media reacted like she was holding a gun to your dog’s head and telling you to eat broccoli or the pooch gets it. The news that women sometimes make more money than their husbands was treated like a national emergency on Fox, with Lou Dobbs suggesting that “society” is “dissolving around us” and Erick Erickson arguing that women’s inability to stay in our place is “tearing us apart.” The possibility of women being Army Rangers has created a similar meltdown at the network, with Andrea Tantaros whining, “Men can’t have anything to themselves anymore.”

Hell, this is a network where a man literally told a female host, “Know your role and shut your mouth.” [You could look it up.]

America is not Israel or Britain or Germany:

No one should understand this better than the people at Fox News. After all, this is the monster they created. They should know what it wants and what it’s capable of. But instead, they seem to think that if you just shake your finger at the right wing base and tell them to be nice to the lady who dared talk back to their hero, Donald Trump, they will somehow realize that they’re not actually courageous warriors holding back the forces of political correctness, but that they are instead just a bunch of jerks. But it doesn’t work that way.

There are some lines that Trump could cross that would derail his campaign. … But dog-piling a woman for daring to tell a man that sexist language isn’t cool? That’s just business as usual. Trump and his audience may seem like a bunch of idiots, but they know that there’s no good argument for why it’s cool to do it to liberals, but not cool when the victim is a conservative. And that’s why there’s no reason to think that telling them to cut it out will do anything but encourage them to do it more.

That’s where we are, and Lithwick adds this:

Since Trump’s putative opponent this year is Hillary Clinton, his gloves-off attitude toward gender may actually help him. One recent focus group, treated to details of Trump attacking Rosie O’Donnell as a fat pig, liked him more afterward than they did before. This, goes the theory, is how to take down a woman who keeps banging on and on and on about women.

That, however, is Hillary Clinton’s new strategy, given that America isn’t yet where Israel was in 1969, where the issue was who could best do the job, even, by the way, a woman, as if that really mattered. That still seems to matter in America today. We “cherish” women. We don’t let them run things. They may be getting tired of that.

Posted in Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Not Ready for Women President | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Committing Journalism

The seventies were an odd time – CNN just presented a series on those years – something to fill the summer months – but of course much was left out. They didn’t mention the cultural shift that happened in 1976 with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein in All the President’s Men – suddenly reporters were heroes, saving the country from disaster, essentially removing an unbalanced paranoid leader. Jason Robards played Ben Bradlee, their tough-as-nails heroic editor – and this was a reversal from what all baby boomers grew up with – The Adventures of Superman – where Noel Neill played Lois Lane, a wide-eyed naïve reporter of sorts. From 1952 through 1958, George Reeves as Superman, when he wasn’t Clark Kent, had to save her sorry ass when she got in over her head – week after week after week. John Hamilton played Perry White, the perpetually clueless editor of the Daily Planet. He never knew what was going on. He was no Ben Bradlee. He was comic relief – but things changed in the seventies.

Of course there was a period of transition when reporters were trying to figure out how far they could push it. Could they challenge power? In a press conference on October 26, 1973, Richard Nixon did slap down Robert C. Pierpoint of CBS News:

Q. Mr. President, you have lambasted the television networks pretty well. Could I ask you, at the risk of reopening an obvious wound, you say after you have put on a lot of heat that you don’t blame anyone. I find that a little puzzling. What is it about the television coverage of you in these past weeks and months that has so aroused your anger?

THE PRESIDENT: Don’t get the impression that you arouse my anger. [Laughter]

Q. I’m afraid, sir, that I have that impression. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT: You see, one can only be angry with those he respects.

Everyone in the room gasped, but Nixon was fed up with these fools pestering him about Watergate. This was a message to his dwindling base, and to the nation. Reporters with all their questions deserve no respect at all. They’re lucky he even talks to them. Perhaps he considered each one as a hapless Lois Lane.

That was a mistake. He demanded respect. He got more investigative journalism. He was gone soon enough. Times had changed. Sneer at the press, now, and bad things happen.

Donald Trump doesn’t agree:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump booted Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a press conference in Dubuque, Iowa, on Tuesday, leading to the veteran journalist’s temporary ouster from the event.

On Wednesday morning, Trump said on TODAY that Ramos was “totally, absolutely out of line.”

The confrontation began when Ramos tried to ask a question out of turn while another reporter spoke.

“Sit down, you weren’t called,” Trump snapped at Ramos. “Go back to Univision.”

The real estate mogul continued to shut down the Mexican-American journalist, leading Ramos to be escorted out of the room by security. But Ramos was eventually allowed back in to ask two questions.

“He was totally out of line last night,” Trump told Today’s Matt Lauer.

It was October 26, 1973, all over again:

Lauer then asked Trump why he lets people get under his skin, and suggested that a renewed feud with another journalist – Fox News host Megyn Kelly – has put him in an unfavorable light.

“I’m not a bully,” he said about public perceptions. “In fact, I think it’s just the opposite way.”

He just thinks that Megyn Kelly owes him an apology, not the other way around. He thinks like Richard Nixon.

Jack Shafer sees that too:

The high solemnity of political news conferences confers upon a politician priest-like or kinglike status: He stands a foot or two higher than the mortals questioning him, looking down. He makes them wait for their turn to be called on. He begins and ends the questioning by decree. Far from opposing these imperious ways, many reporters, especially those who consider themselves members of the journalistic guild, applaud the arrangement. Not to get all Chomskian on you, but by virtue of their obedience, the guildsmen can count on the king’s attention and convert that attention into bylines.

That’s how it used to work, but times change:

At the beginning of his presidency, Ronald Reagan pacified the howlers in attendance at news conferences. No more jumping up and down and shouting, “Mr. President! Mr. President!” Reagan’s people decreed. By 1987, Reagan had gone too far in controlling the news, holding only two news conferences in the first 10 months of the year. Journalists like Sam Donaldson of ABC News and Chris Wallace of NBC News were right to start screaming their questions any time he appeared in public. The “competition” between Donaldson and Wallace grew so heated, the New York Times reported, that the two “engaged in a shoving match over positions in the briefing room to broadcast their reports.” At least Ramos didn’t push anybody.

But this isn’t 1973:

A modern article of journalistic faith holds that journalists should never become the story – and by putting himself out there to unsettle the Trump show, Ramos did just that. Again, not every news conference can be improved by a reporter’s showboating. But in the asymmetrical dynamic of a news conference, in which the interviewee holds all the power, an occasional breach of etiquette such as the one Ramos engaged in does not spell the end of civil culture. Ramos didn’t splash Trump with pig’s blood or anything, he merely violated convention in an attempt to break news on his own terms by speaking out of turn.

Trump needs to understand this was no big deal and accept the inevitable:

One strike against Ramos, offered by the journalistic orthodoxy, is that he’s not an “objective” journalist but an advocacy journalist, therefore he and his work can’t be trusted. Yet advocacy journalism has enjoyed a rich and glowing history in the United States: Such partisans as Tom Paine, William Lloyd Garrison, Elijah Lovejoy, Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, John Swinton and Jacob Riis broke vital news in decades past. Then came the muckrakers and their contemporary inheritors – Jessica Mitford, Michael Harrington, Ralph Nader, Jack Anderson, the gangs at Ramparts and Mother Jones magazines, and such current partisans as Glenn Greenwald, David Corn and others who have made important news without sacrificing their personal views.

By virtue of Trump’s immigration views and the coarse way he expresses them, his collision with Spanish-language media was inevitable. Add to that the fact that Trump has already filed suit against Univision for dropping his Miss Universe pageant, and his tirade against the network’s most high-profile journalist was doubly inevitable. Disrespected by Ramos, the always-ready-to-insult mogul did what he always does when he feels abused – he took out the verbal strap and started whipping.

That’s what Nixon did, but Shafer sees something else going on here:

The Trump-Ramos incident will likely redound to the mutual benefit of both. Trump wisely allowed Ramos back in the room and took his questions, positioning himself as the disciplinarian who can humanize himself when necessary by adding a sprinkle of mensch, as they volleyed back and forth. Ramos comes out of the rumble similarly fortified. He went after the king, he was banished by the king, he returned to the king’s court to battle the king once again.

In the name of news, this calls for a repeat match. I can’t wait for Ramos’ extended interview with Trump on Univision.

Shafer may be kidding. That interview is unlikely now, and Glenn Greenwald points out there are still Lois Lane reporters out there:

Politico’s political reporter Marc Caputo unleashed a Twitter rant this morning against Ramos. “This is bias: taking the news personally, explicitly advocating an agenda,” he began. Then: “Trump can and should be pressed on this. Reporters can do this without being activists” and “some reporters still try to approach their stories fairly & decently. & doing so does not prevent good reporting.” Not only did Ramos not do journalism, Caputo argued, but he actually ruins journalism: “My issue is his reporting is imbued with take-it-personally bias… we fend off phony bias allegations & Ramos only helps to wrongly justify them… One can ask and report without the bias. I’ve done it for years & will continue 2 do so.”

A Washington Post article about the incident actually equated the two figures, beginning with the headline: “Jorge Ramos is a conflict junkie, just like his latest target: Donald Trump.” The article twice suggested that Ramos’ behavior was something other than journalism, claiming that his advocacy of immigration reform “blurred the line between journalist and activist” and that “by owning the issue of immigration, Ramos has also blurred the line between journalist and activist.” That Ramos was acting more as an “activist” than a “journalist” was a commonly expressed criticism among media elites this morning.

Greenwald calls bullshit on that:

Here we find, yet again, the enforcement of unwritten, very recent, distinctively corporatized rules of supposed “neutrality” and faux objectivity which all Real Journalists must obey, upon pain of being expelled from the profession. A Good Journalist must pretend they have no opinions, feign utter indifference to the outcome of political debates, never take any sides, be utterly devoid of any human connection to or passion for the issues they cover, and most of all, have no role to play whatsoever in opposing even the most extreme injustices.

Thus: you do not call torture “torture” if the U.S. government falsely denies that it is; you do not say that the chronic shooting of unarmed black citizens by the police is a major problem since not everyone agrees that it is; and you do not object when a major presidential candidate stokes dangerous nativist resentments while demanding mass deportation of millions of people. These are the strictures that have utterly neutered American journalism, drained it of its vitality and core purpose, and ensured that it does little other than serve those who wield the greatest power and have the highest interest in preserving the status quo.

What is more noble for a journalist to do: confront a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hatemongering nonsense about mass deportation, or sit by quietly and pretend to have no opinions on any of it and that “both sides” are equally deserving of respect and have equal claims to validity? As Ramos put it simply, in what should not even need to be said: “I’m a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What’s ‘totally out of line’ is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions.”

But something has changed since the seventies:

The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the byproduct of the increasing corporatization of American journalism. That’s not hard to understand: One of the supreme values of large corporations is fear of offending anyone, particularly those in power, since that’s bad for business. The way that conflict-avoiding value is infused into the media outlets that these corporations own is to inculcate their journalists that their primary duty is to avoid offending anyone, especially those who wield power, which above all means never taking a clear position about anything, instead just serving as a mindless, uncritical vessel for “both sides,” what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has dubbed “the view from nowhere.” Whatever else that is, it is most certainly not a universal or long-standing principle of how journalism should be conducted. …

Ultimately, demands for “neutrality” and “objectivity” are little more than rules designed to shield those with the greatest power from meaningful challenge. As BuzzFeed’s Adam Serwer insightfully put it this morning, “‘Objective’ reporters were openly mocking Trump not that long ago, but Ramos has not reacted to Trump’s poll numbers with appropriate deference… Just a reminder that what is considered objective reporting is intimately tied to power or the perception of power.”

This means Greenwald has his new hero:

What Ramos did here was pure journalism in its classic and most noble expression: He aggressively confronted a politician wielding a significant amount of power over some pretty horrible things that the politician is doing and saying.

Perhaps so, but not everyone agrees:

Even after Univision host Jorge Ramos was kicked out of a Donald Trump press conference for challenging the GOP 2016 frontrunner, the angry language didn’t stop once Ramos had been escorted to the hallway.

“Get out of my country. Get out,” a Trump supporter told Ramos after he had been escorted from the press conference in a video posted by Fusion. In the video, Ramos calmly responds to the supporter that he is, in fact, a U.S. citizen.

“Well, whatever … it’s not about you,” the supporter said, aggressively gesturing at the Univision host.

What is it about then? Josh Marshall reposts an email he received from a reader:

If you go to Univision.com right now, the video is on the front page top. Not top of the news section; top center of the whole website (at least on a phone). There is a headline like “Trump Kicks Jorge Ramos out of Press Conference” and then the money quote: “Go Back to Univision”.

The video has no set up or commentary from any Univision reporter or news anchor. None is required. This is one powerfully self-explanatory clip. It is hard to imagine the message being any clearer to the millions of Univision viewers, spat straight from the sneering, hateful mouth of a big, blonde-haired and red-faced White Man…

You are not welcome in Trump’s America. Go the fuck back where you came from. Let’s be serious, I don’t care if you are legal or illegal. Hell, I don’t care if you are one of the most prominent, respected and powerful members of the Mexican-American community. You are still just a Mexican, so shut up and get the fuck out. What did you say, boy? You think you have the right to be heard? You think you have the right to speak to me without being spoken to? Well, guess what, you have no rights. You don’t even have the right to be here. Guards!! Seize, silence and deport this Mexican imposter immediately!

And now it gets nasty:

I have to believe the Ramos exchange is going to open the gates for more media coverage of denunciations and counter punches from those, like Ramos, who the mainstream media deem coverage-worthy spokespersons for the communities Trump is attacking and vilifying. As we know, if this happens Trump’s instinctual response will be to double-down, escalate and attack (although, let’s face it, he blinked letting Ramos back in the room and engaging him).

If this “conversation” (aka shouting match) does play out on Fox and CNN and Sunday shows it will doubtless be ugly, at least based on what comes out of Trump’s mouth, but it could be interesting and perhaps not all bad if dissenting voices and a few facts actually start getting some air time.

There is that. Facts are nice, but the conversation won’t be:

If the GOP thought they had lost control of the process and the narrative up to now in the Trumpcycle, I have a feeling it will pale in comparison to Stage Two, when it’s “Trump v. Ramos, LIVE on FOX!” Up to now, Trump had been masterfully controlling the narrative and the media. Thanks to Mr. Ramos, I think in this next stage he is going to lose control, too, and we are heading into uncharted waters.

Trump won’t know what hit him, at least that’s the thrust of the Los Angeles Times profile of Ramos:

The 57-year-old has anchored “Noticiero Univision,” Spanish-language TV’s No. 1 ranked newscast, for nearly three decades and is considered a trusted source of news. A 2010 study by the Pew Hispanic Center found that among Latinos, Ramos was the second-most recognized Latino leader behind Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and other polls have shown he is one of the most trusted public figures among Latinos.

“Spanish-language news has almost the same pull as the priest in the pulpit,” Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles), told the Los Angeles Times in 2013. “And Jorge Ramos is the pope, he’s the big kahuna.”

Ramos has a lot of followers: According to Nielsen ratings, more than 2 million viewers tune in to “Noticiero Univision” nightly. For perspective, in 2013, that was three times the audience of CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”

And according to recently published research, the GOP’s presidential nominee would need to win nearly half of the Latino vote to make it to the White House. (President Obama won reelection with 71% of the Latino vote).

During the last presidential election cycle, Washington Monthly called Ramos the broadcaster who would most determine the outcome of the 2012 election.

Despite that, Trump at one point on Tuesday night said he “didn’t know much about him.”

What you don’t know can hurt you:

Earlier this year, Ramos defended his focus on immigration in an open letter to Republicans.

“The Republican Party has been complaining lately about how some Latino journalists, including me, only ask them about immigration,” he wrote. “That is correct, but what Republicans don’t understand is that for us, the immigration issue is the most pressing symbolically and emotionally, and the stance a politician takes on this defines whether he is with us or against us.”

Ramos has been unapologetic about his and the network’s stance.

“Our position is clearly pro-Latino or pro-immigrant,” he said in 2013. “We are simply being the voice of those who don’t have a voice.”

Latinos, in turn, see Ramos as a leader. According to the Pew Hispanic Center survey, 38% of Latinos surveyed considered Ramos a major Latino leader.

And this is personal:

A native of Mexico City, Ramos moved to Los Angeles as a student in 1983 and took UCLA Extension classes in journalism. He landed an on-air job at KMEX-TV, Los Angeles’ Spanish-language station. Three years later, he was named an anchor for Univision, becoming one of the youngest national news anchors in television.

Ramos, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen seven years ago, has consistently used his position to unabashedly push for immigration reform.

“I am emotionally linked to this issue,” Ramos told The Times in 2013. “Because once you are an immigrant, you never forget that you are one.”

And Jorge Ramos is not Lois Lane:

At a University of Texas at Austin forum this year, Univision News President Isaac Lee summed up the network’s perspective: “Univision’s audience knows that Jorge is representing them,” Lee said. “He is not asking the questions to be celebrated as a fair and balanced journalist.… He’s going to ask the person whatever is necessary to push the agenda for a more fair society, for a more inclusive society and for the Hispanic community to be better.”

Univision brass also stood up for Ramos on Wednesday evening, calling Trump’s behavior “beyond contempt.” “Mr. Trump demonstrated complete disregard for him and for the countless Hispanics whom Jorge seeks to represent,” Univision Communications Chief Executive Randy Falco said in a statement.

And Ramos doesn’t fold:

Ramos quit his first reporting job at a Mexico City TV station after his bosses demanded he soften a piece critical of the Mexican government and he refused.

Ramos has said he approaches interviews with world leaders in the context of warfare. “My only weapon is the question,” he told The Times in 2013.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Ramos moderated a series of Univision candidate forums, and pressed Mitt Romney and President Obama hard on immigration issues. After confronting Romney about his proposed “self-deportation” policy, Ramos turned to Obama.

“A promise is a promise,” he said, prodding the president over the administration’s deportation of more than 1.4 million people and failure to tackle immigration in his first term. “And, in all due respect, you didn’t keep that promise.”

Ramos doesn’t let anyone off easy. He gets in their face, and in fact that’s been an American tradition since the seventies, when things shifted and reporters suddenly became heroes. Donald Trump didn’t get the memo.

On the other hand it’s always been that way. There’s Thomas Jefferson’s 1823 letter to Lafayette – “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

The agitation it produces must be submitted to? Someone tell Donald.

Posted in Advocacy Journalism, Donald Trump, Jorge Ramos | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Long Way

“Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way.” ~ Chris Lowe

Chris Lowe should know. He’s one half of the pop duo Pet Shop Boys – and the world of pop music is filled with dimwitted folks who know they’re wonderful and will tell you so. The entire entertainment industry is filled with such people. How else do they do what they do in front of vast audiences night after night? Bury introspection. Bury reasonable self-doubt. Or have neither. You’re wonderful, better than anyone else, and everyone will see that. Sneer at others too. That helps.

It’s a different world. A healthy ego will keep you from folding in civilian life when things keep going wrong, even if you’ve been a bit stupid. Maybe you’re not a total fool. In the entertainment industry, a huge ego may be the only thing that keeps you going and assures success – and you can be as stupid as you want. In fact, it’s probably best to be a bit stupid. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, you’re wonderful. Project that. That’s what you’re selling. That’s what your agent is selling. Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way. It’s worked for Tom Cruise – or maybe it’s the sneering Scientology. Either way, one’s success depends on uninformed arrogance.

Donald Trump comes from that world. For all his success in high-end real estate development and branded merchandise, his biggest success had been with his reality shows, Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice. Kevin Drum sees how that has shaped things politically:

To a lot of us, Trump is a celebrity real estate developer who likes to get into petty feuds with fellow celebrities. That doesn’t seem very presidential. But that’s the old Trump. The modern Trump still gets into petty feuds with fellow celebrities, but he’s also the star of Celebrity Apprentice, and that’s how a lot of people view him these days. … So here’s how the show works. A bunch of C-list celebrities compete in teams each week at tasks given to them by Trump. At the end of the show, Trump grills the losing team in the “boardroom,” eventually picking a single scapegoat for their failure and firing them. As the show ends, the humiliated team member shuffles disconsolately down the elevator to a waiting car, where they are driven away, never to be seen again. This is the price of failure in Trumpworld.

Now, picture in your mind how Trump looks. He is running things. He sets the tasks. The competitors all call him “Mr. Trump” and treat him obsequiously. He gives orders and famous people – well, sort of famous, anyway, more famous than most cabinet members certainly – accept them without quibble. At the end of the show, he asks tough questions and demands accountability. He is smooth and unruffled while the team members are tense and tongue-tied. Finally, having given everything the five minutes of due diligence it needs, he takes charge and fires someone. And on the season finale, he picks a big winner and in the process raises lots of money for charity.

That’s surely why this guy is doing so well:

Do you see how precisely this squares with so many people’s view of the presidency? The president is the guy running things. He tells people what to do. He commands respect simply by virtue of his personality and rock-solid principles. When things go wrong, he doesn’t waste time. He gets to the bottom of the problem in minutes using little more than common sense, and then fires the person responsible. And in the end, it’s all for a good cause. That’s a president.

This is stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego:

Obviously this is all a fake. The show is deliberately set up to make Trump look authoritative and decisive. But a lot of people just don’t see it that way. It’s a reality show! It’s showing us the real Donald Trump. And boy does he look presidential. Not in the real sense, of course, where you have to deal with Congress and the courts and recalcitrant foreign leaders and all that. But in the Hollywood sense? You bet.

So keep this in mind… For the past seven years (eleven years if you count the original Apprentice show), about 10 million people have been watching Donald Trump act presidential week after week. He’s not a buffoon. He’s commanding, he’s confident, he’s respected, he demands accountability, and he openly celebrates accomplishment and money but then makes sure all the money goes to charity at the end. What’s not to like?

That’s what he’s selling, and as Politico reports, the show goes on:

On Tuesday, Fox News chief Roger Ailes said in a statement Donald Trump should apologize for a tirade of tweets aimed at Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

“Donald Trump’s surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing. Megyn Kelly represents the very best of American journalism and all of us at Fox News Channel reject the crude and irresponsible attempts to suggest otherwise,” Ailes’ statement reads. “I could not be more proud of Megyn for her professionalism and class in the face of all of Mr. Trump’s verbal assaults. Her questioning of Mr. Trump at the debate was tough but fair, and I fully support her as she continues to ask the probing and challenging questions that all presidential candidates may find difficult to answer,” Ailes said. “Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should. We have never been deterred by politicians or anyone else attacking us for doing our job, much less allowed ourselves to be bullied by anyone and we’re certainly not going to start now. All of our journalists will continue to report in the fair and balanced way that has made FOX News Channel the number one news network in the industry.”

It seems he had told her that she was fired:

Late Monday night, Trump tweeted several times about Kelly, who had just returned to hosting after a vacation, writing that he “liked The Kelly File much better without @megynkelly. Perhaps she could take another eleven day unscheduled vacation!”

Trump also tweeted that Kelly was “really off her game” and retweeted a tweet that called Kelly a “bimbo.”

Then the Fox News team swung into action:

“Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmeade said Tuesday morning that Trump is “totally out of control” and that his attacks on Kelly are “totally unwarranted.”

Host Bret Baier, who moderated the GOP debate with Kelly and Chris Wallace, tweeted “It’s been 19 days since the debate — @realDonaldTrump has made his feelings clear. But THIS needs to stop,” adding the hashtag “#letitgo.”

Sean Hannity, who had one of the first interviews with Trump on Fox after the debate and initial Kelly flare-up, also tweeted his support of Kelly, though he called Trump a “friend.”

“My friend @realDonaldTrump has captured the imagination of many. Focus on Hillary, Putin, border, jobs, Iran China & leave @megynkelly alone,” he wrote.

The feud isn’t over:

Trump has had a beef with Kelly since the first Republican presidential debate, when Kelly asked Trump about his past remarks about women. Soon after the debate, Trump blasted Kelly, at one point telling CNN’s Don Lemon that “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” Trump was even close to boycotting the network, a source told POLITICO. But a few days after the debate, a truce seemed to have been met between Fox and Trump.

“Donald Trump and I spoke today,” Ailes said in a statement released by the network the Monday night following the debate. “We discussed our concerns, and I again expressed my confidence in Megyn Kelly. She is a brilliant journalist and I support her 100 percent. I assured him that we will continue to cover this campaign with fairness & balance. We had a blunt but cordial conversation and the air has been cleared.”

Trump made up too, in a tweet: “Roger Ailes just called. He is a great guy & assures me that ‘Trump’ will be treated fairly on @FoxNews,” he wrote. “His word is always good!”

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter last week, Trump praised Ailes and said he and the network were “fine now.”

“We were at war because I felt that [Kelly’s debate question about women] was unfair, and I let him know it. But it’s all fine now. They were tough questions, and I thought inappropriate, but Roger didn’t, and I’ll go with Roger.”

It seems he changed his mind, or was thinking he was still hosting Celebrity Apprentice, but Politico sees the dilemma:

The fight between the two camps puts both back in a precarious position. Trump, who is not yet advertising in any traditional sense, relies on the media to keep his name in the headlines and his supporters riled up. For Fox, Trump is a ratings bonanza. His appearance in the first GOP debate is partly credited with bringing in a whopping 24 million viewers for Fox News.

All that is in jeopardy now, then Trump released this:

I totally disagree with the FOX statement. I do not think Megyn Kelly is a quality journalist. I think her questioning of me, despite all of the polls saying I won the debate, was very unfair. Hopefully in the future I will be proven wrong and she will be able to elevate her standards to a level of professionalism that a network such as FOX deserves.

More importantly, I am very pleased to see the latest polls from Public Policy Polling showing me at a strong number one with 35% in New Hampshire, the Monmouth University poll showing me, again at number one, with 30% in South Carolina and the latest national poll from Gravis where I am again the clear front runner with 40%. It was also just announced that I won the prestigious corn kernel poll at the Iowa State Fair by a landslide. I will be in Iowa tonight with my speech being live on CNN and other networks. My sole focus in running for the Presidency is to Make America Great Again!

In short, they should have fired her. He would have fired her if he could. How could Roger Ailes be so stupid? Hasn’t he ever watched Celebrity Apprentice?

David Zurawik sees an impasse here:

If I know anything about the unpredictable media world in which we now live, it is this: Trump crossed a line with a very tough and powerful media executive. Kelly is the present and future of Fox News. Its ratings empire was built on the back of Bill O’Reilly, but he’s in decline, as anyone can see from his soft coverage of Trump in recent nights. She is the tent pole that will support the entire primetime lineup of Fox shows for years to come. And Ailes built her onscreen persona brick by brick. Her image was nurtured the way Louis B. Mayer built those of stars and starlets in the old Hollywood studio system. Ailes would be the worst media executive in the world to stand by and let the single most valuable asset at Fox News be damaged – especially by a reckless character like Trump.

This calls for some free advice:

I would urge Trump to go back to the fall of 2010 and study the fierce and tribal warfare Fox News waged on NPR after the public broadcaster fired Juan Williams for a statement he made about being uncomfortable on a plane when he sees someone in Muslim garb. Fox pounded NPR mercilessly for the callous way it treated Williams, and after an investigation was done of the firing, two senior managers wound up leaving NPR.

For its part, Fox hired Williams full time within days of his losing his relationship with NPR. I spoke to Williams at the time and know how much he felt the warmth of that Fox embrace from Ailes & Co. meant to him when he felt vulnerable.

And now, I am guessing Trump is going to feel the fire of the Fox wrath, unless he apologizes to Kelly – something I cannot imagine him doing.

Steve M at No More Mister Nice blog, noting that in the middle of all this, Ailes’ boss, Rupert Murdoch, was tweeting that he really wished that Michael Bloomberg were running for president, sees an odd dynamic here:

When questions arose about whether Murdoch would renew Ailes’s contract, which was set to expire in 2016, Ailes reportedly said, “Rupert is going to need me to elect the next president.” Ailes got that contract renewal – and clearly his job is to get a Republican elected. And not that kind of Republican – Ailes is supposed to get someone elected who’ll pursue an agenda somewhere between Establishmentarian and Kochian. Trump threatens that. So Ailes, on Murdoch’s behalf, is clearly expected to rein him in now.

Ailes thinks of himself as a tough guy, but we’ll see if he can really handle Trump. Maybe it’s going to be total war – but I think Ailes is going to see a serious hit to his ratings if he succeeds in bringing Trump down. But Murdoch may be giving him no choice.

And all of this stems from that which has made Donald Trump so famous. Real estate aside, his success was built on uninformed arrogance in contrived settings. Chris Lowe did say that will take you far, and Trump can’t help himself:

A journalist for the Spanish-language network Univision who asked Donald J. Trump about immigration was mocked by the candidate, then escorted out of a news conference here on Tuesday evening.

Jorge Ramos, an anchor for Univision news shows based in Miami, stood and began asking a question just as Mr. Trump recognized another reporter. “Excuse me, sit down. You weren’t called,” Mr. Trump told him. “Sit down. Sit down.”

Mr. Ramos asked Mr. Trump about his call to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country and build a wall the length of the Mexican border.

“You haven’t been called, go back to Univision,” Mr. Trump said.

As security officers approached Mr. Ramos, a Mexican-American, he said: “I am a reporter. Don’t touch me. I have a right to ask the question.”

No, Trump said he was fired, and Janell Ross takes it from there:

The billionaire later allowed Ramos back into the press conference, where the two engaged in several lengthy exchanges that dominated the remainder of the event. But none of those exchanges provided the moment that will be repeated in endless loops on cable TV, shared on social media and discussed in Hispanic TV-watching households across the country.

The lasting image will be that of Ramos – who serves as Univision’s lead anchor and is effectively one of the (if not the) most powerful newsmen on Spanish-language TV – being hustled out of the room after trying to ask Trump a question. Ramos, whose nightly newscast has been known to post ratings that top those of all three major English-language network news programs, has a history of holding presidential candidates very close to fire on issues he believes to be of deep concern to Latinos, such as immigration.

No one holds Trump close to the fire, not Megyn Kelly and not Jorge Ramos. This is Celebrity Apprentice. It’s his show. He fires them. But uninformed arrogance has its limits:

During the period that Ramos was out of the room, Trump described Ramos as “obviously a very emotional person” whom he does not know. When Ramos was allowed to return, the journalist questioned Trump about the contents of his immigration policy, and Trump’s repeated use of the term “anchor baby.” Trump defended the term’s use and comments made during his announcement speech reiterating the unfounded claim that the Mexican government is engaged in a coordinated effort to send the dregs of its society to the United States.

After taking questions from other reporters in the room, Trump turned his attention back to Ramos. Trump then claimed that he enjoys tremendous support among Latinos.

“Do you know how many Latinos work for me? Do you know how many Hispanics are working for me? They love me,” Trump said.

It was an evening filled with comments unlikely to endear Latino voters – or other Americans aware that Trump’s comments about Ramos’ emotions amount to an almost-direct reference to an oft-repeated Latino stereotype. And the idea that Americans of any kind love the people who employ them, well, that’s another matter entirely.

But there’s nothing new here:

In July, during his much-covered border visit, Trump cut off a reporter affiliated with the nation’s second-highest-rated Spanish language network, Telemundo, during the reporter’s question about the language that Trump has used to describe those crossing the Mexican border.

Trump grew angry about the content of the question, describing it as an attempt to mischaracterize his statements. He told the reporter that he was “finished.”

That sounds familiar, so this continues:

Now, Trump has engaged in a public tangle with one of the best-known names in Spanish-language news. During the 2012 election, Ramos’s reach and influence prompted both President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney to sit down for extended, multilingual interviews focused on the issue of immigration. Univision is also the nation’s top-rated Spanish language network and an organization that cut business ties with Trump in June, canceling a multi-year broadcast deal with the Miss Universe pageant over Trump’s presidential announcement speech claims that rapists and other criminals are streaming across the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump is a part owner of the pageant.

It is, of course, unlikely that Trump’s response to Ramos will ding the Republican front-runner’s standing with voters who have praised his plain-spoken, often confrontational public persona. That’s precisely what some of them like about him.

And that explains this exchange:

When Ramos pressed Trump on polls showing his unpopularity with Latinos, Trump would not accept the premise of the question. First, he interrupted Ramos and turned the question on him: “How much am I suing Univision for right now? Do you know the number? I know you’re part of the lawsuit.”

Trump filed suit against the network in June, alleging defamation and breach of contract, after Univision ended its relationship with him and canceled plans to broadcast the Miss Universe pageant he owns following his controversial comments about Mexican immigrants.

“I’m a reporter,” Ramos said. 

“Five hundred million dollars,” Trump replied. “And they’re very concerned about it, by the way. I’m very good at this.”

Hasn’t Jorge Ramos ever watched Celebrity Apprentice? And Trump doesn’t need Jorge Ramos:

David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and self-described “racial realist,” says Donald Trump is the best Republican candidate for president because he “understands the real sentiment of America.”

The Klan, as you recall, also liked to “fire” tiresome useless people, lynching them, so this was inevitable. Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way, to some really nasty places – but Trump’s reality show never really ended, did it? He’s still sneering at losers. America is still loving it.

Posted in Donald Trump, Jorge Ramos, Megyn Kelly | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Voice of Some of the People

The voice of the people is the voice of God – Vox Populi, Vox Dei – words everyone used to mutter back when any reasonably educated person knew Latin – but a fairly commonplace idea. There are experts, and there are wild-eyed cranks, and venial politicians, and clever lawyers and those with this agenda or that – all out to get what they want – but there is the voice of the people, the common man. If you want the best answer to some vexing problem – something as close to the voice of God as possible – then what the sensible and well-informed public thinks is as close as you’re going to get. And even if the public is not all that sensible or well-informed, what they think matters more than anything else. It’s the wisdom of the people. It may be that God speaks through them.

Alternatively, the people might be full of crap. Or the voice of the people is ambiguous – they don’t speak as one – some want this and others want that. Add to that our populist politicians, who say they speak for the people. George Wallace – segregation now, segregation forever – was a populist politician, but that was because he hated big government, at least the one in Washington, and told the common man, the little guy, that he didn’t have to put up with those folks up there telling him how to treat “those” people. But those who believed in segregation now and segregation forever were outnumbered. The sensible and well-informed general public was outraged by what was happening in the South in the early sixties. The voice of the people wasn’t ambiguous. Wallace was the voice of a sliver of the people. He spoke for the common man, the little guy, if that guy lived in the South or in white suburbs elsewhere. The voice of the people was something else entirely.

Sarah Palin ran into the same problem back in October 2008:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin apologized yesterday for implying that some parts of the country are more American than others, even as similar comments by two Republican congressmen were causing a backlash that threatened their chances for reelection.

In an interview on CNN, Palin said comments she made last week in North Carolina praising small towns as “the real America” and the “pro-America areas of this great nation” were not intended to suggest that other parts of the country are less patriotic or less American.

“If that’s the way it has come across, I apologize,” she told CNN’s Drew Griffin.

If you are going to speak for the people, the Real Americans, you ought to know who they are – some of them live in cities, and even in Hollywood – but there was another guy in North Carolina saying that “liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.” There was something in the air. What Sarah Palin said was badly put, but she was one of many – she just happened to get caught. She was an easy target, but populism can be tricky.

Populism can also be effective. That’s why, this summer, we have two populists who are leaving all others in the dust, as the Los Angeles Times’ Kathleen Hennessey notes here:

If Donald Trump were running against Bernie Sanders in the general election next year, Americans would face a choice between an unabashed capitalist and an enthusiastic socialist. One candidate would rail against the power of the “billionaire class,” while the other once said that “part of the beauty of me is that I am very rich.”

On many levels, the contrast between the two candidates in this hypothetical – and highly unlikely matchup would be stark. But it’s what they have in common that’s made them the men with the momentum this summer.

Both Trump the real estate tycoon, and Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, are tapping into anti-establishment, pro-outsider sentiment that is emerging as a potent force early in the campaign cycle. Years of dissatisfaction with Washington leaders, along with a thirst for authenticity in politics, are leading voters to at least contemplate something different this year – dramatically different.

Voters want their voices to be heard, so they love a populist candidate:

Both campaigns acknowledge – albeit somewhat reluctantly – that they share common undercurrents.

“On the one hand, I find the comparison preposterous,” said Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic strategist and Sanders advisor. Aside from some similar-sounding populist rhetoric on trade and on campaign finance, the two men’s views are “diametrically opposed.”

“On the other hand, I understand why people are looking for some commonality to what’s going on. I think they’re both candidates who are cutting through the typical back-and-forth of politics. … There’s this recognition on the part of voters that this is a guy who says exactly what he’s thinking at the moment.” …

Trump, speaking this week on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” also noted the similarities.

“He’s struck a nerve on the other side and I’ve struck, I think, an even bigger nerve on the Republican side, the conservative side. It’s amazing,” he said.

The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman isn’t so sure about that:

Both parties are drawn to populist appeals, but they come in different variants. The Democratic version tends to be both performative and substantive – they’ll rail against the top one percent, but also offer policy ideas like upper-income tax increases and minimum wage hikes that are intended to serve the interests of regular people. Democratic populism says that the problem is largely about power: who has it, who doesn’t, and on whose behalf it’s wielded.

Republican populism, on the other hand, is aimed against “elites” that are decidedly not economic. It’s the egghead professors, the Hollywood liberals, the government bureaucrats whom they tell their voters to resent and despise. And part of that argument is that despite what those know-it-all experts would have you believe, all our problems have simple and easy solutions. All you need is “common sense” to know how we should reform our health care system, fix the VA, or control undocumented immigration. Understanding how government works isn’t just unnecessary, it’s actually a hindrance to getting things done.

There may be no candidate who has ever sung this tune with quite the verve Trump does, but he’s following in a long tradition.

It’s the same old story:

Ronald Reagan used to say, “there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers” – all it takes is the courage to embrace them. George W. Bush trusted his gut more than his head, and saw a world where there are only good guys and bad guys; once you know who’s who, the path forward is clear and only a wuss would worry about the unintended consequences that might arise from things like invading foreign countries.

In its somewhat less extreme version, this belief in the simple truths that only regular folks can see is what drives the common belief that whatever’s wrong in Washington can be solved by bringing in someone from outside Washington. So Ted Cruz proudly trumpets the fact that all of his colleagues in the Senate think he’s a jerk. And Scott Walker criticizes his own party’s congressional leaders, saying, “We were told if Republicans got the majority there’d be a bill on the president’s desk to repeal ObamaCare. It is August. Where is that bill? Where was that vote?”

Well, the answer is that there’s this thing called a filibuster, which Democrats used to stop that bill from getting to the president’s desk, where it would have been vetoed anyway (the real problem is that those leaders promised their constituents something they knew they could never deliver). But in this particular populist critique, the way institutions work is irrelevant, and a straight-talking, straight-shooting Washington outsider can come in and clean the whole place up wielding nothing more than the force of his will, some common sense, and good old fashioned American gumption.

Waldman can’t believe people fall for this nonsense:

If the Obama years have taught us anything, it’s that policy problems are – guess what – complicated. Understanding policy doesn’t get you all the way to solutions – you need a set of values that guides you and creativity in imagining change, among other things – but you can’t do without that understanding, at a minimum. Yet a significant chunk of voters continues to believe that everything is simple and easy, no matter how many times reality tells them otherwise.

Well, that’s populism for you. The people can be full of crap, but in this item by Jeet Heer in the New Republic, Heer questions the whole idea of populism:

Baffled by Donald Trump’s popularity, some observers have sought to make sense of it with a familiar – and often misused – political label. “Trump is not really a Republican, he’s a populist,” historian Geoffrey Kabaservice told the Guardian. Sarah Palin, who herself often been described as a populist, wrote of the xenophobic real-estate magnate, “Trump has tapped into America’s great populist tradition by speaking to concerns of working class voters.” And countless journalists have applied the P-word to Trump.

What is a populist, precisely? Is it someone who understands or represents ordinary people? Someone who speaks truth to power? Or who simply speaks the truth, unvarnished?

The term is a notoriously slippery one, yet there is no reason it should ever be applied to Trump.

The term just doesn’t fit:

The British scholar Peter Wiles, in a much-quoted 1969 definition encapsulated populism as the belief that “virtue resides in the simple people, who are the overwhelming majority, and in their collective traditions.” Trump’s entire style, his gaudy bragging about his own wealth and achievements, is the opposite of the traditional populist celebration of ordinary humble people. Throughout Trump’s rhetoric runs the theme that wisdom is not to be found in ordinary people but in the leadership skills of Trump himself, who alone has the brains to squash the losers and make America great.

Moreover, as Daniel Drezner notes in The Washington Post, there’s little reason to think that Trump’s positions are popular ones outside the Republican base. Trump has called for the mass expulsion of undocumented immigrations and a reduction of the number of legal immigrants. Anti-immigrant nativism has been in a long-term secular decline since the early 1990s. In 1995, 65 percent of Americans told Gallup that the level of immigration should be decreased. By 2015, in a poll asking the same question, only 34 percent said immigration should go down (as against 65 percent who wanted to maintain the same level or increased).

As The New York Times reported on the weekend, Trump’s actual supporters come from a broad demographic swath of the Republican Party. “He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters,” the Times noted. College-educated Republicans hardly constitute a populist constituency, so there is good reason to think Trump’s putative populism deserves another label.

Heer has that label:

Rather than a populist, Trump is the voice of aggrieved privilege – of those who already are doing well but feel threatened by social change from below, whether in the form of Hispanic immigrants or uppity women (hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”). Far from being a defender of the little people against the elites, Trump plays to the anxiety of those who fear that their status is being challenged by people they regard as their social inferiors. That’s why the word “loser” is such a big part of his vocabulary.

Trump is not the first authoritarian bigot to be mislabeled a populist. In truth, the term almost always gets misused to describe movements that are all about persevering (and enhancing) hierarchy, not about creating a more egalitarian society.

That’s why Joe McCarthy’s anticommunist vendetta in the early fifties wasn’t, as some say, a populist uprising against those know-it-all-egghead-traitors in our government:

McCarthy’s locus of support was the traditional Republican Party base of business owners, particularly those in small and medium-sized cities. McCarthy appealed to the business elite because his anti-communist crusade promised to roll back the New Deal and newly empowered labor unions. He, no less than Donald Trump, was the voice of aggrieved privilege, not the champion of the common person.

What’s true of McCarthyism is also true of subsequent movements and figures like the John Birch Society, David Duke, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement and Donald Trump. As Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons noted in their 2000 book Right Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, the Birch Society uses “populist rhetoric” but “Birchites distrust the idea of the sovereignty of the people and stress that the United States is a republic, not a democracy… Birchites want to replace the ‘bad’ elites with ‘good’ elites–presumably their allies.” Among the big backers of the Birch Society was the Koch family, who later underwrote the Tea Party movement. Members of the Tea Party, often described as populist, tend to be wealthier and better educated than most Americans, as well as being predominately white.

We need to call this something else:

These are not mass movements of the people hoping to make a more democratic society. Rather they are political factions of authoritarian bigotry, backed by the rich, and designed to protect aggrieved privilege. Trump is best described not as a populist but as an authoritarian bigot, a quality best seen in his callous response to the news that two men evoked his name when they beat up a homeless Mexican man. “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,” he said. “They love this country and they want this country to be great again.”

Josh Marshall sees that too:

Much of what has driven the GOP in the Obama era has been anxiety and resentment about losing out to rising forces in the American political-economy and culture – the decreasing white share of the national electorate (embodied by but also partly connected to Barack Obama’s election), changing social and cultural mores (support for LGBT rights) driven by Americans under the age of 35, a renascent and assertive women’s movement and the increasing defensiveness or even paranoia of organized wealth.

Trump brings all these together with better messaging and fewer apologies – which is the core of his political potency and why his electoral strength seems to cross many common ideological divisions. In Trump world there are winners and losers. And right now you’re a loser. And you should be ashamed of being a loser when Mexico and China and the illegal immigrants are winners. But Trump will show you how to be a winner again because he’s a winner. He’ll help you get back what’s yours – which is basically the textbook definition of the politics of resentment.

But that has implications:

Trump appears to be making a bid to rebrand the GOP as a white nationalist party, just with better marketing and better hair. Trump’s response to that anti-immigrant hate crime in Boston remains very telling and has not received enough attention. Today we see a similar response from his campaign manager to people chanting ‘white power’ at his big speech in Alabama. Said Corey Lewandowski – “I don’t know about the individual you’re talking about in Alabama. I know there were 30-plus thousand people in that stadium. They were very receptive to the message of ‘making America great again’ because they want to be proud to be Americans again.”

And on the Boston hate crime: “We would never condone violence. If that’s what happened in Boston, by no means would that be acceptable in any nature. However, we should not be ashamed to be Americans. We should be proud of our country, proud of our heritage, and continue to be the greatest country in the world.”

It’s really not too much to say that the Trump campaign is leaving the door wide open to people who see his immigrant bashing American greatness campaign in deeply racial terms, indeed even to ones who are so “passionate” that their passion could spill over into violence.

This is frightening, almost:

One exception to this is the news we see from over the weekend that Trump is railing against a tax code tilted toward the super-rich and particularly toward hedge fund managers who he says are “getting away with murder.” That certainly sounds like what you might call a genuinely populist message.

What I draw from this is that the politics of grievance and resentment can pull in and appeal to people who are … well, genuinely and legitimately aggrieved. Indeed, at their best, that’s what campaigns like Trump’s do, feed off the grievances and anger of aggrieved elites but also appeal to people who are undeniably getting a bag shake from the system. At some level you have to do that since, by definition, there aren’t enough elites to build a majority political movement around.

Yes, populism is tricky, but a few weeks earlier David Brooks had said this:

The times are perfect for Donald Trump. He’s an outsider, which appeals to the alienated. He’s confrontational, which appeals to the frustrated. And, in a unique 21st-century wrinkle, he’s a narcissist who thinks he can solve every problem, which appeals to people who in challenging times don’t feel confident in their understanding of their surroundings and who crave leaders who seem to be.

Cool, but there’s Joyce E. A. Russell, vice dean at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business and director of its Executive Coaching and Leadership Development Program, and a licensed industrial and organizational psychologist, who says this:

We often think about the magnetic and attractive side of charisma – the person with strong oral communication skills who exudes presence and positivity. He or she has strong self-esteem and projects confidence. These are all wonderful attributes. We know that charismatic leaders can draw us in to listen to their message. But there can be a “dark side” of charisma in which the charismatic person primarily uses charm to manipulate others. Leaders who have a dark side may be narcissistic leaders.

And they have these traits:

They have a very high need for attention and admiration and show less concern for others.

They have excessive love and admiration of themselves and an inflated sense of self-worth.

They look at themselves with undue favor, self-love, conceit, pride and vanity.

They lack empathy for others, especially since they are so preoccupied with themselves.

They may act immaturely (for example, use inappropriate humor or gestures) to draw attention to themselves.

They may act in grandiose or exhibitionistic ways.

They like being the center of attention.

They don’t think anyone has the right to criticize them and they complain about criticism (that they are being “picked on”).

If they fail at something, they blame others.

They don’t take most rules seriously because they make their own rules.

They may interrupt others and hog conversations.

They believe that if they ruled the world, it would be a much better place.

In the business world that means this:

Research has shown that narcissism can limit people from bringing dissenting but valuable ideas to the table; create enemies and alienate key followers, leading to excessive turnover and reducing productivity; and blind leaders to the real issues and dangers.

In the political world it means the same thing, and it’s not populism. It’s just popular, with those who wish they were rich enough to grab anything they want and tell everyone else to fuck off. Donald Trump provides the fantasy. Rita Rudner – “Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That’s how rich I want to be.” It’s like that. And it isn’t populism.

Posted in Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Populist Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment