Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Thursday, November 10, 2016

You Can Collaborate or You Can Resist

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

Rule #1Believe 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 #2Do 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 #3Institutions 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 #4Be 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 #5Don’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 #6Remember 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.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Protesting Donald Trump

Activists in Chicago protested a Donald Trump rally and shut it down. I don't entirely understand the point. Yes, you can rally and shut down a Trump event.  But what's the end game?

Donald Trump is running as an authoritarian leader over a group that is afraid of change and also feels that it's been attacked by outsiders.  So protesters are now showing up and providing the evidence that Trump's followers are indeed under attack.  The protesters have shut down what he had to say and to his followers that just proves that his enemies don't want his voice heard.  Trump is under attack in reality the way his followers have always known they are under attack. They aren't allowed to say the things that they believe and now the same people who silence them are trying to silence Trump.

So what' the point of protesting Trump and shutting down his rally? Is it to make a point that his politics are toxic? Because we know that.  Those of us who aren't voting for him know this already. Is it peal off his support?  The support that feels under attack and now has proof that their leader is under attack?

I get that protesting is a form of First Amendment action. I just don't understand the goal in this one. This sort of protest against Donald Trump is just the wrong strategy. You want to stop Trump?  Vote for someone who isn't Donald Trump. My preference is that you vote for a Democrat.  You think Trump is bad?  Trump is vocal.  Cruz scares the piss out of me.  Voting is the strategy to trip Trump. Confrontation isn't the approach that will work.  Trump and his supporters want confrontation and it only serves to firm up their beliefs and support.  Responding to anger with anger is not a solution. You respond to anger with reason.

Sunday, March 6, 2016

#NeverTrump

Last week the Republican Establishment went full bore into it's anti-Trump attacks.  They rolled out Mitt Romney in an anti-Trump speech on March 3rd.  The New York Times published the text of the speech and you can read it yourself. Mitt Romney as you remember was the Republican Nominee in 2012 who lost the election to President Barack Obama. After Romney's loss one of the critiques was that he was insufficiently conservative. So who does the establishment roll out, but Mr Establishment himself who was dismissed by many conservatives for failing to be sufficiently orthodox. There was also some discussion and I don't know how serious it was of drafting Mitt for a dark horse run as a last ditch attempt to counter Trump. Somewhere over the last week the hashtag #NeverTrump was spun up on the web.

I don't know who started #NeverTrump, but I really have no clue what that means. A few strategies to get there have been floated.  The one that is currently underway has been to support a candidate and try to get voters to support that person.  As mentioned previously the establishment backed Marco Rubio once Jeb! Bush dropped out. Since then we've had two batches of primaries with Rubio doing poorly in both.  He finished second or third on Super Tuesday and then on Semi-Super Saturday he finished third across the board. Rubio made a big splash in Florida when he ran for Senate and he was a Tea Party darling in those days. Ted Cruz did really well on Semi-Super Saturday coming in first in two caucuses and second in two others. So I'm wondering how much the establishment label is hurting Rubio, but if you were holding out for Rubio to be the #NeverTrump solution you probably need to look elsewhere.

There's Ted Cruz as the #NeverTrump candidate and based on Semi-Super Saturday it may be that some people are voting for him, but the establishment and elites in the Republican Party hate Cruz with a passion. They view him as an opportunist who will do anything to get to advance his career. So from an establishment point of view Cruz like going from the fire into the frying pan; you won't get burned, but you are still cooked. Cruz is however a palatable alternative for authoritarian evangelicals with an anti-establishment bent. The two states Cruz won are Kansas and Maine and I'm not going to put much weight on either of those states with states with much higher populations that do actual primary elections and not caucuses coming up.

Another option for the #NeverTrump faction is the concept of the contested election.  In this strategy you don't have to win the nomination in the primaries, but you just have to make sure that Trump doesn't.  When you get to the convention you won't have a clear winner and then the wheeling and dealing can begin and the establishment can engineer someone else to be the nominee.  There's a huge danger here. Imagine what Trump's followers are going to think. They are angry because they feel that they've been screwed by just about everyone and they are incredibly anti-establishment.  They are going to view this as the establishment stealing the election and invalidating them and their votes. And then who gets the nomination?  The establishment doesn't like Trump, but it also doesn't like Cruz.  If Cruz has the second highest number of delegates what happens?  The establishment is pretty much screwed here.  They could get #NeverTrump, but end up with Cruz or an emasculated Rubio or Kasich and an open civil war in the party.

The last option I can see is that Trump wins and the establishment runs a third party option in the general election. I don't see this happening, but it is an option. This is where Mitt Romney might come back into the picture or maybe Michael Bloomberg.  There's really only a couple people who could fill the role, but basically it's splitting the Republican vote.

My opinion is that the people who say #NeverTrump are either not thinking things to the end of simply throwing a tantrum. #NeverTrump means finding another candidate to beat Trump out right in the primary or splitting the Republican vote in the general election.  If you split the Republican vote in the general election you are giving the election to the Democratic Party.  So win the primary outright or throw the election to Hillary Clinton.  That's really what #NeverTrump means and I bet most people are either not thinking it out or are simply locking onto a catch phrase and lying to themselves.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

The Republican Primary

To do a write up of the Republican Primary justice I think you need to spend more time writing up your analysis than I, someone doing it for free in my spare time, can provide time to do. But here I am trying.

Right now the Republican Primary consists of Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Carson.  Carson and Cruz seem to be trying to split the religious conservative vote.  Trump has the non-religious, anti-establishment, and conservative vote. Rubio and Kasich are vying for the establishment conservative vote.  You'll notice a theme there.  Conservative.  There are no moderates in this race.  Anyone calling Kasich a moderate conservative or a moderate Republican is an idiot and only trying to put him on a right axis line graph with no left.  They really are all bunched up on the extreme right end of the scale. So level of conservatism isn't a huge factor here.

The other thing happening in the Republican Party is the full scale adoption of authoritarianism.  (Yes, you can be anti-establishment and authoritarian.) Politico has an article by Matthew MacWilliams about a poll conducted testing authoritarian belief in Republican primary voters.  MacWilliams writes, "49 percent of likely Republican primary voters I surveyed score in the top quarter of the authoritarian scale." The study finds that Trump has locked up about half the authoritarian votes in the primary.  He doesn't write about where the remainder of the Republican authoritarians are leaning, but I'm willing to bet that a number are locked into Cruz and Carson.  Cruz and Carson are vying for the evangelical vote and evangelicals generally score high on authoritarian scales. Authoritarians believe generally in strong father figures that must be obeyed and quite frankly the evangelical view of God is the ultimate father figure that must be obeyed.

The question in my mind is what happens when Cruz and Carson drop? Where do their supporters break?  Do they go establishment or do they go authoritarian?  I think that's what will define the end of the primary. Mind you that Trump is in the driver's seat in this campaign.  Rubio has proven that by adopting the campaign tactic of making personal attacks against Trump.  I have no clue what Rubio is trying to do.  Attacking Trump personally just solidifies him with his base.  It isn't going to peel off Trump voters. Trump's appeal isn't his crassness.  His supporters enjoy it because they find it refreshing and it's something they fantasize about being able to do.  Trump is a billionaire which means he has freedom  to do whatever he wants.  Trump doesn't need money and he doesn't need a job.  If his followers spoke the way he does they would get fired.  Fear of being jobless and moneyless is a key factor in curbing certain speech.  Maybe Rubio thinks it makes him look like Trump, but at the end of the day you can have the Real Trump or you can have the cheap knock off version.  Rubio is the cheap knock off version.

The authoritarian bent isn't the only factor in the nomination for the Republicans, but it is a big one.  And I do think it's going to be a large driver to who wins.  Another factor comes down to the establishment versus the anti-establishment.  The Tea Party is extremely anti-establishment. They have tried to oust the establishment in Congress and have had considerable success in doing so. Trump is the ultimate anti-establishment candidate in the Republican Party right now.  Upon a time Rubio was a Tea Party darling and represented the anti-establishment, but at this point he is the establishment's best hope of beating Trump.  So the next question is if the Carson and Cruz voters are interested in going establishment or anti-establishment and I think there's a strong case that Cruz's supporters are anti-establishment, but Cruz also has a large evangelical following and I'm not sure which factor is going to drive them.

Obviously I've spent a lot of time thinking about the Republican Primary and I just don't know how this ends.  Lindsey Graham this week referred to his party as being batshit crazy. Senator Graham is solidly conservative and also very much an establishment guy.  His summation of the Republican Party is pretty much right on and that's what makes it so hard to predict which way this is going to go.  The Republicans are driving off road and while that makes it an intriguing puzzle for someone like myself who enjoys the analysis it also makes it scary as all Hell. This is a party that has gone insane. I know a lot of people sit back and think that is a good thing since "there's no way they can win the White House," but that's a lazy analysis.  Let me close by adding that the MacWilliams poll indicated that in regards to the authoritarian angle 39% of independents and 17% of Democrats have authoritarian leanings.  Let that sink in for a bit.


----------------------------

Links:

Matthew MacWilliams, The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533.

Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba has done considerable analysis on authoritarianism and I advise reading his book: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

South Carolina Republican Primary

Trump's path to the Republican nomination got a lot clearer yesterday.  The Republican Primary in South Carolina was held on February 20th (the Democratic Primary is next weekend).  Trump came in first with 32.5% of the vote, Rubio came in second with 22.5%, Cruz came in third with 22.3%, and Bush, Kasich and Carson finished with under 8% each.

Kasich and Carson are finished.  I expect Kasich's support to flow to Rubio and Carson's to Trump. Bush will hold on until Super Tuesday.  The elite and establishment will consolidate now around Rubio and the money will flow his way.  We've seen the start of Cruz attacking Rubio as a creature of the establishment and I would expect that to increase at this point.  He's going to get hammered on that point and will become radioactive with the base which is distinctly anti-establishment and anti-elite.

Cruz is going to hang on for a while, but he'll be toast before long.  He uses a lot of dirty tricks and he's doesn't come across as particularly moral.  He's a career opportunist and this is his high water mark.  I'm not entirely sure where Cruz's support goes when he drops out.  I think a best guess would be a split between Trump and Rubio, but I'm not sold on that.  Trump has suprised me in that he has a fair number of Evangelical Christians voting for him.  It's possible that they rally to Trump's banner.

Of course I'm in pundit mode and even though I've been mostly correct so far (you'll have to take my word for it since I was still on blogger hiatus as of last week), I'm painfully aware of how hard it's been to make predictions about this race.  Six months ago I wouldn't have guessed Trump vs Rubio for the nomination.  I would have guess Bush with Trump playing the spoiler.  This race is a dream come true for people who enjoy political analysis.

UPDATE: Well, one of the problems with not following the news closely is that Bush dropped out already.  So I'm off on the timing on that one.  I really thought he was going to wait for Super Tuesday.