Is the Media Waking to Authoritarianism?

During the campaign Donald Trump often attacked and ridiculed the media.  He would hold rallies and have the media sectioned into pens.  He would hurl insults at them and invite his followers to do so.  The media for some reason decided that this was acceptable and it appears felt that once the election was over that things would change. This week Trump summoned them to meetings.

According to the New York Post the television media were summoned to Trump Tower in New York.
Per an unnamed source who attended the meeting:

“The meeting took place in a big boardroom and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said. 

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said. 

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate — which was Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.” 

The stunned reporters tried to get a word in edgewise to discuss access to a Trump administration.

The New York Post reports "NBC’s Deborah Turness, Lester Holt and Chuck Todd; ABC’s James Goldston, George Stephanopoulos, David Muir and Martha Raddatz; CBS’ Norah O’Donnell, John Dickerson, Charlie Rose, Christopher Isham and King; Fox News’ Bill Shine, Jack Abernethy, Jay Wallace and Suzanne Scott; MSNBC’s Phil Griffin, and CNN’s Jeff Zucker and Erin Burnett."  So that's the list of people who received special attention from Trump.  Anyone reading the article can easily see it for what it is, an attempt to intimidate the media and put them into their place.  The media are self appointed elite and Trumpism has steadily attacked elites, so to expect the media to be treated as something special was a stretch.

Given how they were treated on the campaign trail it isn't surprising to me that Trump would seek to bully them post-election. I'm only partly surprised that the media didn't see this coming because the media has a sense of entitlement calling itself the "Fourth Estate."  That they would be taken in by an authoritarian clown and abused is pretty easy to see.  Anyone should have been able to see it coming.  The media didn't because they are too full of themselves and their own self importance.

Margaret Sullivan writing in The Washington Post comments,

Brandon Friedman, a Virginia-based public relations executive, offered his theory on Twitter: “They walked into an ambush, agreed not to talk about it, then Trump went straight to the Post with his version.” 

Then it was just a hop, skip and jump to a big headline on the Drudge Report, with its huge worldwide traffic: “Trump Slams Media Elite, Face to Face.” As Business Insider politics editor Oliver Darcy aptly put it, that is “how a lot of America will see this.” 

The result for the president-elect: He once again was able to use the media as his favorite foil. Having a whipping boy is more important than ever now that the election is over and there is no Democratic opponent to malign at every turn.

Sort of sums it up there.

Christiane Amanpour of CNN wrote a commentary entitled "Journalism faces an 'existential crisis' in Trump era."  Amanpour writes, "I actually hoped that once President-elect, all that that would change, and I still do. But I was chilled when the first tweet after the election was about 'professional protesters incited by the media.'"  She continues, "As all the international journalists we honor in this room tonight and every year know only too well: First the media is accused of inciting, then sympathizing, then associating -- until they suddenly find themselves accused of being full-fledged terrorists and subversives. Then they end up in handcuffs, in cages, in kangaroo courts, in prison -- and then who knows?" Amanpour gets it.  She really does.  The question is do her bosses at CNN get it?  I doubt it.  CNN was turned over to false equivalence panel shows a long time ago.  They chase ratings.  Same is true of CBS, ABC and NBC.  They are all in business to gain ratings which translate into ad dollars which means profits.  They area all profit centers for their parent corporations.  At the end of the day will any of them listen to Amanpour and pursue truth to power or will they all fall into false equivalene, normalization and access.

I have no faith in the broadcast media.  Access and ratings are all they care about.

But then Trump had a meeting scheduled with The New York Times.

The New York Times meeting went down entirely different.  The Times refused to make the meeting off the record.  They also asked questions and got answers.  They weren't there to have their egos stroked and they weren't there to supplicate before the altar of Trump.  They were there as reporters.  The New York Times Editorial Board wrote a op-ed and they state that his answers were flexible, but lacking any in depth thought which to me would seem to indicate a total lack of conviction.

The New York Times Editorial Board ends with, "Ronald Reagan used to say that in dealing with the Soviet Union, the right approach was to "trust, but verify." For now, that's the right approach to take with Mr. Trump. Except, regrettably, for the trust part."

Support for President Trump

I call upon Democrats and Principled Conservatives to provide Trump with the same level of support and cooperation that Republicans provided to President Obama.

You Can Collaborate or You Can Resist

Masha Gessen writing for The New York Review of Books produces Autocracy: Rules for Survival.  

Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says. Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization. This will happen often: humans seem to have evolved to practice denial when confronted publicly with the unacceptable. Back in the 1930s, TheNew York Times assured its readers that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was all posture. More recently, the same newspaper made a telling choice between two statements made by Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov following a police crackdown on protesters in Moscow: “The police acted mildly—I would have liked them to act more harshly” rather than those protesters’ “liver should have been spread all over the pavement.” Perhaps the journalists could not believe their ears. But they should—both in the Russian case, and in the American one. For all the admiration Trump has expressed for Putin, the two men are very different; if anything, there is even more reason to listen to everything Trump has said. He has no political establishment into which to fold himself following the campaign, and therefore no reason to shed his campaign rhetoric. On the contrary: it is now the establishment that is rushing to accommodate him—from the president, who met with him at the White House on Thursday, to the leaders of the Republican Party, who are discarding their long-held scruples to embrace his radical positions.
He has received the support he needed to win, and the adulation he craves, precisely because of his outrageous threats. Trump rally crowds have chanted “Lock her up!” They, and he, meant every word. If Trump does not go after Hillary Clinton on his first day in office, if he instead focuses, as his acceptance speech indicated he might, on the unifying project of investing in infrastructure (which, not coincidentally, would provide an instant opportunity to reward his cronies and himself), it will be foolish to breathe a sigh of relief. Trump has made his plans clear, and he has made a compact with his voters to carry them out. These plans include not only dismantling legislation such as Obamacare but also doing away with judicial restraint—and, yes, punishing opponents.
To begin jailing his political opponents, or just one opponent, Trump will begin by trying to capture of the judicial system. Observers and even activists functioning in the normal-election mode are fixated on the Supreme Court as the site of the highest-risk impending Trump appointment. There is little doubt that Trump will appoint someone who will cause the Court to veer to the right; there is also the risk that it might be someone who will wreak havoc with the very culture of the high court. And since Trump plans to use the judicial system to carry out his political vendettas, his pick for attorney general will be no less important. Imagine former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie going after Hillary Clinton on orders from President Trump; quite aside from their approach to issues such as the Geneva Conventions, the use of police powers, criminal justice reforms, and other urgent concerns.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality. Consider the financial markets this week, which, having tanked overnight, rebounded following the Clinton and Obama speeches. Confronted with political volatility, the markets become suckers for calming rhetoric from authority figures. So do people. Panic can be neutralized by falsely reassuring words about how the world as we know it has not ended. It is a fact that the world did not end on November 8 nor at any previous time in history. Yet history has seen many catastrophes, and most of them unfolded over time. That time included periods of relative calm. One of my favorite thinkers, the Jewish historian Simon Dubnow, breathed a sigh of relief in early October 1939: he had moved from Berlin to Latvia, and he wrote to his friends that he was certain that the tiny country wedged between two tyrannies would retain its sovereignty and Dubnow himself would be safe. Shortly after that, Latvia was occupied by the Soviets, then by the Germans, then by the Soviets again—but by that time Dubnow had been killed. Dubnow was well aware that he was living through a catastrophic period in history—it’s just that he thought he had managed to find a pocket of normality within it.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.
Of course, the United States has much stronger institutions than Germany did in the 1930s, or Russia does today. Both Clinton and Obama in their speeches stressed the importance and strength of these institutions. The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.
The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access. There is no good solution (even if there is a right answer), for journalism is difficult and sometimes impossible without access to information.
The power of the investigative press—whose adherence to fact has already been severely challenged by the conspiracy-minded, lie-spinning Trump campaign—will grow weaker. The world will grow murkier. Even in the unlikely event that some mainstream media outlets decide to declare themselves in opposition to the current government, or even simply to report its abuses and failings, the president will get to frame many issues. Coverage, and thinking, will drift in a Trumpian direction, just as it did during the campaign – when, for example, the candidates argued, in essence, whether Muslim Americans bear collective responsibility for acts of terrorism or can redeem themselves by becoming the “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. Thus was xenophobia further normalized, paving the way for Trump to make good on his promises to track American Muslims and ban Muslims from entering the United States.
Rule #4: Be outraged. If you follow Rule #1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised. But in the face of the impulse to normalize, it is essential to maintain one’s capacity for shock. This will lead people to call you unreasonable and hysterical, and to accuse you of overreacting. It is no fun to be the only hysterical person in the room. Prepare yourself.
Despite losing the popular vote, Trump has secured as much power as any American leader in recent history. The Republican Party controls both houses of Congress. There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The country is at war abroad and has been in a state of mobilization for fifteen years. This means not only that Trump will be able to move fast but also that he will become accustomed to an unusually high level of political support. He will want to maintain and increase it—his ideal is the totalitarian-level popularity numbers of Vladimir Putin—and the way to achieve that is through mobilization. There will be more wars, abroad and at home.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises. Like Ted Cruz, who made the journey from calling Trump “utterly amoral” and a “pathological liar” to endorsing him in late September to praising his win as an “amazing victory for the American worker,” Republican politicians have fallen into line. Conservative pundits who broke ranks during the campaign will return to the fold. Democrats in Congress will begin to make the case for cooperation, for the sake of getting anything done—or at least, they will say, minimizing the damage. Nongovernmental organizations, many of which are reeling at the moment, faced with a transition period in which there is no opening for their input, will grasp at chances to work with the new administration. This will be fruitless—damage cannot be minimized, much less reversed, when mobilization is the goal—but worse, it will be soul-destroying. In an autocracy, politics as the art of the possible is in fact utterly amoral. Those who argue for cooperation will make the case, much as President Obama did in his speech, that cooperation is essential for the future. They will be willfully ignoring the corrupting touch of autocracy, from which the future must be protected.
Rule #6: Remember the future. Nothing lasts forever. Donald Trump certainly will not, and Trumpism, to the extent that it is centered on Trump’s persona, will not either. Failure to imagine the future may have lost the Democrats this election. They offered no vision of the future to counterbalance Trump’s all-too-familiar white-populist vision of an imaginary past. They had also long ignored the strange and outdated institutions of American democracy that call out for reform—like the electoral college, which has now cost the Democratic Party two elections in which Republicans won with the minority of the popular vote. That should not be normal. But resistance—stubborn, uncompromising, outraged—should be.

The Consequences of President Trump

I do not believe at this time that I can sway minds in this election.  You've made your decision.  You are voting for who you are voting.  Whatever I write here in this space will not change your mind.  If you are voting for Trump, Johnson or Stein then you own the consequences.  This post is about the consequences of those votes because those votes add up to the statement "I'm fine with Donald Trump being President" and if you feel that way, then you own the consequences and I'm going to lay out some of them for you.

Donald Trump is an authoritarian.  I've had arguments with people if he rises to the level of fascism.  He is a fascist.  The oligarchs in America will do quite well with President Trump.  One of the traits of fascism is that the people who support it do well when the government hands out contracts and spending.  And they will do well.  Donald Trump has already called for slashing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and his tax cut plan involves handing 99% of the benefits to the 1% in America.  He is an authoritarian who has said he will sue news sources and he has said he would put Hillary Clinton in jail if he wins.  Think he's bluffing?  When has Donald Trump forgiven a slight?  When has he not sought revenge when it was available.  He may not be a Hitler, but he is certainly a Mussolini or a Franco.

Paul Ryan's budget framework for the Federal Government will pass.  No one thinks the likelihood of the House of Representatives turning Democratic with this election to even be worth mentioning.  It is highly likely that if Donald Trump wins the election that the Republicans will retain a Senate Majority.  That means Paul Ryan can start passing his budget plan and it will be signed into law.  What's in that plan?  Tax cuts for the wealthy and Trump is already on board on that.  Restructure of Medicare devolving authority to the States and pushing the funding to the states in the form or grants.  The other offing for Medicare would be simple privatization at the Federal level.  Either way your parents Medicare is under the axe.  Obamacare would obviously be repealed and no there is no Republican alternative.  Social Security would be back under the threat of privatization.  Trump said he would save it, but didn't say how.  The Republican plan for "saving" Social Security has always been about privatization and it would likely take the form of 401k-type plans funded by payroll deductions in which Wall Street gets to start extracting management fees.  In order to pay for those tax cuts without cutting military spending social programs will have to be cut deep.  Dodd Frank which created a watchdog committee to monitor abuses by financial firms will be repealed.  They will also continue to dismantle regulations on other industries.

Donald Trump has also decided to end Federal support for Global Warming preparation and spending on renewable energy.  The US would pull out of the current global accord on climate change.  The accord likely would collapse.  A few degree world wide warming is going to cause droughts on the land and rising sea levels with coastal areas flooded.  None of that will be immediate, but will take decades.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy.  It will be filled by someone who will support the Republican agenda.  There are at least two more liberally leaning SCOTUS Justices who will retire in the next four to eight years.  The Republican Party and President Trump will hold a majority on the Supreme Court for another twenty years.

We've seen a great deal of work at the state level to suppress the voting blocks that traditionally support Democratic politicians.  That will continue and with the Supreme Court solidly in Republican hands for a generation and the Legislature and Executive branches we will see no attempt at the Federal level to stop these attempts.

These are some of the consequences of allowing Trump to become President.  There is one candidate who is in a position to stop this and she is Hillary Clinton.  None of what I describe above will come to pass while Hillary is President.  So there's your choice and there's your consequences.  Don't say you weren't warned.

Massachusetts Ballot Questions: Question Four

Question Four on the Massachusetts ballot concerns the legalization of marijuana.

I'm voting yes on question four.

I don't smoke marijuana.  I smoked it a couple times between high school and college and that was over twenty years ago.  So I do have some basis of understanding marijuana.  I've also smoked tobacco a few times over the years.  Single cigarettes here and there and the last time I tried one was when it was still legal to smoke in bars in Massachusetts.  My memories of smoking marijuana area about the same as smoking a cigarette.  I got about the same impact from smoking marijuana as I did a cigarette.  If tobacco hadn't of been big business when marijuana was made illegal you can bet tobacco would have gone that path too.  And then there's alcohol.  I don't see much difference between the impacts of alcohol and marijuana either.  The new law would only make marijuana legal for people over twenty-one, just like alcohol and tobacco.  I don't see any big difference between marijuana, tobacco and alcohol.  Alcohol and tobacco are legal.  Marijuana should be too.

I'm also a believer in the legalize it and tax it approach.  Right now we have a pretty big black market for marijuana.  None of that is taxed.  Legalize it and tax it.  Bring in new revenue to the state.

Lastly I'm a fan of personal rights.  Adults over twenty-one are fully capable of making their own decision to smoke marijuana or not.  We can put the same curbs on it as we do alcohol.

Massachusetts Ballot Questions: Question Three

Question Three on the Massachusetts ballot concerns a change to animal husbandry laws in the state. I'm just going to copy and paste a block from the state site: "his proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items."

This is a hard one.  I do feel for the question, but I don't know enough about farming.  I understand the point of trying to get animals a "living" space, but again I don't know what this would mean to farms.  I also don't know how many farms would be impacted by this or what redress those farms would have if they can't comply.  I'm also not a fan of holding retailers for selling animal products if they "should know" that the animals weren't given the space indicated in this law.  I'm also a bit concerned about the cost of food products and how that would impact people living in poverty.

I guess the short of it is that I'm voting no on this one.