“Donald Trump is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party for the past ten, fifteen, twenty years.” President Barack Obama
By the time pitchers and catchers report for spring training early next year, you’ll probably be devoting a lot more of your time time to emergency financial planning as the GOP rams an alarmingly right-wing agenda through congress and onto the desk of President Trump. As a public service, I’d like to save you time you’ll need then by letting you read about some of next spring’s big news stories today.
Deficits discovered to not matter anymore. After eight years of bleating and braying about the outrageous, unsustainable deficits that Barack Obama ran up (mostly paying for George W. Bush’s recession), Republicans will have an epiphany and realize that deficits really aren’t all that important, especially when they result from tax cuts. By early next year, it will be clear that Trump’s economic play will explode the deficit if the opinions of serious economists are considered. Those opinions will not make their way into very many news outlets.
Obama sabotaged the transition. As the Trump administration embarrasses itself with one misstep after another, unattributed stories will make their way around right-wing media that the Obama team sabotaged the incoming Trump staffers through various nefarious means. The Trump transition would have been flawless if Obama and his staff hadn’t undermined him at every turn.
The media kept Obama’s economic devastation unreported and secret. Trump’s team will announce that the president was correct when he said on the campaign trail that Obama was cooking the books to hide how terribly the economy has been performing. As everyone knows, corporate tax cuts are the obvious remedy but they need to be bigger and enacted more rapidly than anyone realized.
The Senate lurches rightward in the absence of the filibuster. When Republicans were in the minority in the Senate when Barack Obama was president, they deployed the filibuster relentlessly as part of their unabashed strategy of obstructionism. With a majority in the Senate, President Trump, and the prospect of multiple Supreme Court vacancies, Republican senators jettison the filibuster rather than allow Democrats to obstruct Trump the way the GOP obstructed Obama.
Traditional media media are frozen out of the halls of power. After spending the entire presidential campaign unfairly reporting the things that Donald Trump has done and said, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and every television news organization besides FOX News has been excluded from White House events in favor of more reliable and cooperative outlets like Breitbart and Drudge.
Less than a week after the most gut-wrenching election of modern times, we’re flooded with articles and essays purporting to offer “the real reason” that Donald Trump won (or Hillary Clinton lost). As I’ve mentioned before, I agree with a sentiment that Colonel Jack Jacobs once expressed on MSNBC: “I’m not a fan of single factor analysis.”
The truth is that when a country like the United State puts itself squarely on a path towards intolerance and fascism, it doesn’t occur as a result of any one single reason or because of any single individual. In fact, there were plenty of reasons for Clinton’s defeat, some of which date back a generation or more. Here, then, is my admittedly incomplete list of the most important milestones on our way to Trumpism, the inflexion points in history when we might have taken a different direction than the one that ended in last Tuesday’s tragedy:
- The Founding Fathers create the Electoral College specifically to amplify the influence of slave-holding states in the nation’s governance (1787).
- Writer Ayn Rand (whose personal morality included the long term cuckolding of her husband with one of her acolytes) releases Atlas Shrugged, an amoral magnum opus designed to provide a specious intellectual justification for unbridled capitalism (1957).
- L. Brent Bozell founds an organization, the Media Research Center, devoted solely to the purpose of relentlessly promoting a baseless notion of a monolithic, liberal, left-wing media (1987).
- The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine paves the way for right-wing talk radio (1987).
- In the wake of George McGovern loss of 49 states in a reelection rout by Richard Nixon, the Democratic Party erroneously attributes the crushing defeat to McGovern’s political leanings and resolves to never again nominate an unabashed liberal (1972).
- Bill Clinton runs for president as a “third way” Democrat, tacitly repudiating the party’s history of progressivism on his way to electoral victory (1992).
- In the wake of Obama’s victory, the GOP explicitly opts for an unprecedented strategy of pure obstructionism for any and all initiatives undertaken by the new president, choosing partisanship over patriotism. (2009)
- Right-wing media and the Republican Party embrace a strategy of relentless racial agitation, embracing the demonstrably false notion that Obama is not a citizen and empowering bigots and racists in the party’s base (2009).
- In Citizens United vs. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court removes key restraints on corporate donations and “dark money” in U.S. elections (2010).
- After Barack Obama installs Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the Chair of the DNC, she embarks on a strategy of paving the way for a single presidential candidate in 2016 rather than supporting the efforts of all qualified, viable candidates (2011).
- In Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court guts the Voting Rights Act (2013).
- CBS president Les Moonves is the least discreet of all the country’s media moguls when he explicitly and relentlessly promotes Donald Trump as a candidate because of Trump’s impact on network ratings, in the process providing Trump with billions of dollars worth of free coverage (2016).
- Republican FBI Director James Comey defies the Justice Department and puts the FBI’s massive finger on the scales in support of Trump’s candidacy during the leadup to the election (2016).
Once the spigot is open, everything keeps flowing out.
- The dignity and humanity Obama displayed over the last eight years as the nation’s first black president now seems far more important than ever (especially in contrast with the vulgarity of Trump and his family). The tragic fact of the matter is that by the time we get to Opening Day for Major League Baseball, that dignity will likely be the only thing that remains of Obama’s legacy. All the rest of it will be substantially gone.
- This was our first election since we lost key protections provided by the Voting Rights Act, protections that will likely not return in the foreseeable future. Barack Obama began his term as the nation’s first black president but he might end it as the nation’s last Democratic president.
- Michael Moore spent the entire election warning anyone who would listen that Trump was going to win. As is often the case with Moore, everyone thought he was trying to be a provocateur. It’s clear now that he understood the landscape better than almost anyone else did at the time.
- How is it not obvious that the entire DNC needs to resign? As an organization, it has failed in every way possible. I’m not saying that the folks who are currently in leadership positions are bad people but the result of this election was by no means inevitable. It flowed logically and obviously from a series of bad decisions, the most egregious of which was to deliberately clear the field for Clinton before the primaries and then rig the system in her favor after Sanders got in. It ought to be clear now that those are disqualifying offences.
- When the Trump administration begins to strongarm news organizations about providing too much airtime for Democrats, do you think Les Moonves or Jeff Zucker will push back? I don’t.
- Take a moment and watch Angela Merkel’s remarkable message to Donald Trump. The rest of the world understands something that our news media here in America is unwilling to say: The U.S. made an enormous mistake on Tuesday.
- The FBI has now interfered with an election and will face no consequences for it. What will constrain a President Trump from using the FBI to investigate Democratic (or even Republican) opponents?
- Over the last eight years, Barack Obama spent more time and energy appeasing Republicans than he did fulfilling his partisan responsibilities as the head of the Democratic Party. As a result, the party today is precisely what Vox recently described: “A smoking pile of rubble.” When Obama’s entire legacy is gutted next year by Trump and a GOP congress, he will have no one to blame quite as much as himself.
If you’re looking for a coherent narrative to explain what happened on Tuesday, I got nuthin’. The best I can do is refer you to the Robert Reich essay I posted about yesterday. Beyond that, I’ll just share a series of tentative reflections and observations that are disconnected and, at times, contradictory. After being wrong so often throughout this election cycle, I’m reluctant to opine at all. In reality, my objective here is not so much to create some insight for you as it is to provide a bit of catharsis for me.
- What happened on Tuesday was a tragic event for this country, more tragic in some ways, than Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The election obviously didn’t entail an immediate loss of American lives as those two events did but its long term implications could prove to be far more devastating. One thing is certain: Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 threatened our most cherished civic values or the American way of life. The same cannot be said for a Trump presidency combined with a unified and radicalized GOP Congress. On social media the morning after the election, one well-meaning commentator after another posted a variation of the message, “We’ll get through this.” Perhaps we will but saying so right now is pure assertion. There’s no reason to believe that a worst case scenario is not possible while there are plenty of indications that one is, in fact, quite likely. (The best early indicator of how much danger we’re in will be whether or not the GOP kills the filibuster in January. If they do—and I believe they will—then we are well and truly fucked.)
- In the past, I’ve criticized the Democrats for their lack of resolve in opposing the Republican agenda. The horrifying reality we now face is that the GOP controls all three branches of government and there is no way to for Democrats to put the brakes on their opponents’ agenda no matter how much resolve they have. And, by the way, this is happening precisely as Republicans are radicalizing themselves to an unprecedented degree. This is not your father’s GOP.
- Hillary Clinton proved to be a flawed candidate in precisely the ways that Bernie Sanders and his supporters predicted she would during the primaries. It was obvious from the beginning that voters of both parties were hungry for change a candidate and that Clinton could never be that candidate. (The GOP faced a similar dynamic in its own contest but no single establishment candidate had been able to preempt the field the way Clinton had on the Democratic side.) It was also obvious from the beginning that Clinton’s 20 years of controversy and distrust were going to be difficult to overcome. (Yes, almost all of Clinton’s baggage was the result of GOP propaganda but that’s irrelevant in terms of the electoral calculus.) Progressives’ analysis of today’s electoral environment and the dangers of embracing corporatism were exactly correct, something the Democratic Party must acknowledge and internalize if it’s going to ever dig out of the enormous hole in which it finds itself.
- Bernie Sanders was my choice during the primaries and I sincerely believe that he could have and would have won the election. But I have no illusions about the fact that he would have had his own challenges as a candidate and a Sanders nomination would have posed its own risks for the party. When I mentioned this to a friend of mine on the phone yesterday, he made the observation that Joe Biden could have won this election in a landslide, undermining Trump in his core constituency of blue collar white workers. I think that’s exactly correct.
- Representative Keith Ellison has declared himself as a candidate to head of the DNC. If there’s a single thing the party can do to set itself on a path to recovery, electing him to that position is probably it. He saw Trump coming two years ago when no one else took the idea seriously (see below). His vision and commitment to the party’s historically progressive ideals is precisely what the Democratic Party needs today if it hopes to move forward.
- Election night made it blindingly obvious that our entire political commentariat has nothing to offer and has been a complete waste of my time. They create lots of heat but very little light, lots of friction but almost no real insight. Reading or listening to them doesn’t make us smarter, it merely makes us more stressed. Five random people out of the phone book would be more insightful about the real world that a typical Sunday morning panel on any of the network news shows. (There will never be a better example of the commentariat’s cluelessness than this panel discussion from This Week with George Stephanopoulos in 2015 that featured an amazingly prescient Congressman Keith Ellison being ridiculed for his suggestion that Donald Trump could become the Republican nominee.) It would be unrealistic to think I’ll be able to avoid commentary entirely but I can promise you that I’ll be make a concerted effort to spend the majority of my time on news sources that reflect Sergeant Joe Friday’s ethos: “Just the facts, ma’am.”
- Our obsession with polls and the horse race aspect of elections has certainly been discussed before but its damage to our political dialog has reached alarming levels and need to be curtailed. My own favored solution is pretty simple (though I freely acknowledge that it’s drastic): I think we need to dramatically regulate or even eliminate pre-election polls. Obviously, this would be a difficult approach to implement (though I don’t think it’s impossible) but I don’t want to get into that discussion right now. Instead, I’m imagining what campaigns and campaign coverage would be like if day by day polling results weren’t distracting us. (How many times did you click on FiveThirtyEight.com over the last sixty days or so? I’d be embarrassed to tell you how often I did.)
- Is there any dount at all that the GOP’s deliberate voter supression strategies tipped this election? Of course, Trump was correct that this election was rigged. He and his party were the ones doing the rigging. (This isn’t speculative. They bragged about it in North Carolina, for example.) Also,consider the fact that, since the Clinton administration, two out of five presidential elections (i.e. 40 percent!) have seen the winner of the popular vote lose the election. And in both cases it was the Democrat. That’s not a coincidence.
- It’s fascinating to consider that Clinton’s campaign might take on the dimensions of a classic Greek tragedy if we learn that she was kept out of office because her husband’s policies disenfranchised voters who could have saved her candidacy.
- We must never forget this statement by CBS executive chairmen Les Moonves concerning the massive uncritical media coverage his company gave to Donald Trump during the primaries: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” I have no doubt that our corporate Masters of the Universe make statements like this among themselves all the time but it’s shocking that Moonves felt he could say something like that out loud in public. It will always remain one of the most shameful moments of the entire election, a stark and irrefutable illustration of how thoroughly broken our system has become.
Yes, Bernie lost an unfair contest. As much as we might wish it were otherwise, these nothing to be done about it now. It’s like losing a football game on a bad call. Once the game is over, the league is not going to reverse a result, no matter how egregiously bad the call might have caused it. (Try Googling “NFL admits error but upholds result” and see what happens.)
And one more important point: Take a look at the calendar. Where do you see enough time to overhaul the DNC, redress all the transgressions from the primaries, and still have enough time to win an election in November? I’ve looked carefully and I don’t think it’s there.
This Bernie Sanders objective has always been to create a movement, not to win an election. We might wish we’d achieved a different result over the course of the primary season but the most important contest now is the one that’s in front of us. Let’s not blow this one because we’re still stewing about the last one. That would make no sense for us tactically nor would it do any good for the larger issues we care about.
But don’t take my word for it. Listen tonight and see what Bernie has to say.
Conservative critics are never reluctant to stretch a bit when it comes to criticizing Barack Obama but S.E. Cupp’s recent tweet about the president reveals a level of stretching and contorting that we’d see if yoga were an Olympic event.
— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) June 30, 2016
The idea that a politician is entitled to immunity from criticism because his critic happens to be overseas is novel in the extreme. It’s certainly a standard that I’ve never heard expressed or even suggested before.
I suspect Ms. Cupp might be a little confused here. What she might be referring to is what was once a longstanding bipartisan American tradition of not criticizing a sitting U.S. president when he or she is overseas (a rule that’s been repeatedly ignored by the GOP since Obama was elected in 2008).
It’s Ms. Cupp’s party that has radically and repeatedly transgressed American tradition, not President Obama. Surely this is obvious.
What’s really sad, though, is to see Ms. Cupp waste whatever credibility she has on a candidate as reprehensible as Trump. The “I’m no fan of Donald Trump…” formulation is a cliché, a variation of the old “I’m not a racist, but…” dodge. As a student of communications, let me offer a pro tip: The best thing to do when you find yourself starting a sentence with one of those is… just stop talking.
The Marx Brothers’ greatest movie was their 1933 classic, Duck Soup. Described as an “anarchic classic,” it follows the exploits of Rufus T. Firefly, a ne’er do well who finds himself in charge of Freedonia, a small country that’s bankrupt and on the brink of collapse. As the thoroughly unqualified Firefly (played by a brilliantly subversive Groucho Marx) muddles through his first cabinet meeting, this inspired exchange takes place:
Firefly: And now members of the cabinet, we’ll take up old business.
Cabinet Member: I wish to discuss the tariff.
Firefly: Sit down, that’s new business. [pause] No old business? Very well, then we’ll take up new business.
Cabinet Member: Now, about the tariff…
Firefly: Too late, that’s old business already. Sit down.
As a gag in a farcical comedy, the exchange works perfectly. But as a template for selecting a candidate for president, it’s a great deal less amusing. Yet a virtually identical approach is being employed by the Democratic Party’s leadership. It’s stiff-arming the party’s progressives and stonewalling any substantive challenge to the establishment’s anointing of Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee.
It’s early March and only a handful of states have voted but a persistent drumbeat has already emerged, a demand to forestall any pointed offensive against the frontrunner. The message comes across in a variety of formats. On the Daily Kos, it’s Markos Moulitsas’ cynical declaration on March 4th (!) that the site will officially transition “to a General Election footing” on March 15—roughly half way through the primaries—if Bernie Sanders hasn’t made enough progress by then to satisfy Moulitsas. On social media, it’s the oft-repeated contention that criticizing Hillary is tantamount to supporting Donald Trump.
While the specifics vary from one occurrence to another, the unwavering theme is that it is criticism of Clinton—and only Clinton—that needs to be muted. Implying that Sanders is a sexist or a covert racist or is contemptuous of children who were murdered at Sandy Hook are all fair game. The entreaties for party unity mysteriously seem to only operate in one direction.
The justification for the virtual gag order is ostensibly a fear of weakening Clinton in advance of the November contest. (Apparently, the prospect of Sanders emerging as the party’s nominee is not deemed worthy of serious consideration.) But concern-trolling from our very serious commentariat notwithstanding, there’s really very little evidence that a vigorous primary contest hurts a party’s nominee in the ensuing general election.
There were few primary contests in recent memory as vigorously contested as the one between Clinton and Barack Obama. While few Sanders supports rule out supporting Clinton in November, there were plenty of Clinton supporters in 2008 who swore they wouldn’t back Obama. In the end, they did what almost all partisans do: they backed their party’s candidate.
The 2000 bout between George W. Bush and John McCain was as nasty as modern political bouts ever get but McCain and his supporters closed ranks in the fall and helped Bush get to a point from which he was ultimately able to prevail in the Supreme Court and take office. Bush faced many obstacles on his way to the White House but blowback from supporters of the man he smeared in the South Carolina primary was not one of them.
The only two modern contests in which a bitter primary season might have contributed to a candidate’s defeat in November were in 1976 and 1980. Both cases involved weak incumbent presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter respectively, who had plenty of other problems beyond a challenge in the primaries. In fact, in contests that don’t involve an incumbent, it’s easier to make a case that primaries strengthen the victorious candidate than that they weaken him or her.
Besides, there’s more at stake than simple electoral considerations. If now is not the time to examine one of the party’s prospective candidates, then when are we supposed to do it? And if we’re not allowed to ask pointed questions, if one candidate is assiduously protected from any and all criticism within the party, then what is the nature of the process by which Democrats are supposed to decide?
Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have put their fingers on the sentiment that’s motivating and angering voters in 2016. (In a different way, Donald Trump has, too.) That sentiment is a visceral reaction to an inescapable perception that the game is rigged, that the fix is in. That’s already true when it comes to perceptions about the economy. But the Democratic Party is playing with fire if it continues to feed the perception that it’s also true when it comes to our elections.