Skip to content

Month: November 2016

Safe spaces

Safe spaces

by digby

This happened. Your new president ladies and gentlemen:

In case you haven’t heard, Mike Pence was booed at “Hamilton” last night. Some reporters for the New York Times were aghast at the rudeness.

I’m afraid I have to agree. Booing is very rude. What you’re supposed to do is chant “lock him up!” and scream “Trump that bitch!”  It’s also fine to call him “nasty” to his face. This booing, however, is disrespectful.

.

The map is the math by @BloggersRUs

The map is the math
by Tom Sullivan


2016 electoral map via 270 to Win.

Reaching back to a Sunday column from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution just ahead of the Democratic National Convention in 1988. Lewis Grizzard (Elvis Is Dead and I Don’t Feel So Good Myself) answered 10 stupid questions national reporters visiting the Atlanta had asked him. One was, “Do you have a lot of rednecks around here?” Grizzard answered (recalling this from memory):

“Well I’ve never been exactly sure what the definition of redneck is. But if by redneck you mean someone who wears white socks, drives a truck, and isn’t particularly fond of black people, yeah we have some people like that around here. What do y’all call ’em in New York, Chicago and Boston?”

I bring it up because a lot of progressives are rather peeved about the outcome of this month’s national election, and not feeling warmly inclined towards our brethren in the South and elsewhere that voted heavily for Donald Trump. The press is all aflutter about white, working-class voters and how their supposed backlash in red states against multiculturalism threw the election to Trump. Whatever the press is calling them today, they are not unique to one region of the country.

The new focus on the white working-class seems misplaced. NPR examined a national split that seems to be more on point:

Here’s another divide that started to get more attention this election: the rural-urban gap. Rural voters vote more Republican, while urban voters vote more Democratic, and that divide grew this year from where it was in 2012 and 2008. It’s a nuanced divide, too; strikingly, as counties get progressively more rural, they more or less steadily grow more Republican. And it’s possible that living in a rural area caused people to vote more Republican this election.

Exit polls show that the rural-urban divide grew from 2008 to 2012, and again this election. What’s particularly interesting is that the rural vote seems to have moved more than the urban or suburban votes.

Rural voters tend to be older, whiter, and less-educated. That is, the more rural the county, the more likely people there match the demographics of a Trump voter. Urban voters went for Obama in 2012 by 26 points. Danielle Kurtzeleben reports, “Clinton lost a small share of votes in urban areas from 2012’s levels, but she lost a bigger share of votes in areas that were more rural.” NPR found Trump dominating in those areas back in August:

All these stats might make it seem that it’s demographics that cause rural voters to choose Trump, or other Republican candidates: that there’s something about being white or about being older or not having a college diploma that makes a person vote for him, and that those people also just happen to live in rural areas.

Or, perhaps, that there’s something about being conservative that makes a person choose a rural area. That may be true — Pew has found that (for whatever reason) people who are conservative prefer places where the population is more spread-out, while liberals prefer denser neighborhoods.

But as one researcher argues, living in a rural area by itself shapes a person’s politics, and can particularly drive a voter toward Trump.

“There’s this sense that people in those communities are not getting their fair share compared to people in the cities,” said Katherine Cramer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin who studied how Gov. Scott Walker appealed to rural voters.

“They feel like their communities are dying, and they perceive that all that stuff — the young people, the money, the livelihood — is going somewhere, and it’s going to the cities,” she said.

There are other theories besides “rural resentment” for why people supported Trump — authoritarianism, racism, “economic anxiety”:

Generalized “economic anxiety” has also been a popular explanation throughout the election, though a recent Gallup paper cast doubt on the idea that Trump voters are unusually plagued by low incomes or adverse effects from trade or immigration. That study, however, showed that Trump voters do come from areas where intergenerational mobility is low, and where white mortality rates are higher (and those mortality rates have climbed in rural areas, in particular).

So, what to do? First, I don’t believe everybody who voted for Trump is a racist. There is no single cause for Clinton’s defeat: not racism, authoritarianism, “economic anxiety,” xenophobia, an uninspiring Democratic candidate, voter suppression, fake news, Wikileaks, Vladimir Putin, or James Comey.

I have no sympathy for racists, rural or urban. But if Democrats expect to be a national party, they are going to need to make inroads again in the red states, whatever urbanites feel about fellow citizens in the vast stretches of red on the map that supported Trump. Those states cannot be wished away or written off. This is not sympathy for the devil, real or imagined. It’s math.

If, for example, Democrats would like to see a veto-proof Senate, that will take 67 senators, or 33 of 50 states with two Democratic senators each, plus 1.

So okay, want to write off 17 red states? No problemo. Let’s start with the old Confederacy. That’s 11 right there. Now we need six more. Add in Republican-voting border states Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and West Virginia. Plus Indiana because, please. And finally Kansas, because what’s the matter with them anyway?

Now we have to elect 2 Democratic senators in 33 other states, and there aren’t that many states on the east and west coasts. Hillary Clinton won only 20 states in November 2016 (including part of Maine). So that’s 13 states that went for Trump where if Democrats want a veto-proof Senate they need to persuade voters to elect Democratic senators.

The anger progressives hold for Trump voters in those red states is both unproductive and non-strategic. If we want to repair the damage coming from a Trump administration and change the map, we have to engage red-state voters who can be reached and not forfeit them to the right, or else we are just howling at the moon. Winning out there was what Howard Dean’s 50-state plan was about, and the party abandoned it.

Any focus on white, rural voters will aggravate some groups that make up Democrats’ multicultural coalition. But progressive politics is not a zero-sum game where if Democrats invest again in organizing rural voters, the progressive coalition in the urban centers gets ignored. Thinking rural lives matter doesn’t mean only rural lives matter. That’s no way to think about it. In the end, the math is the math.

Friday night soother

Friday Night Soother

by digby

Some good stuff is still happening in this world:

375 animals are boarding planes in LA today -and this one is heading to Idaho
Wings of Rescue has pulled these guys from high-risk shelters and now they’re ready to have a second chance at finding forever homes

.

Get ready for a long fight

Get ready for a long fight

by digby

I think this analysis by Brendan Nyhan gets to the nub of what happened in this election:

In recent years, the Democrats and Republicans have battled along a liberal-conservative axis of conflict that emphasizes disagreement over the size and scope of government rather than divisive disputes about racial identity. During the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, for instance, John McCain and Mr. Romney ran against Mr. Obama’s domestic policy proposals on issues like health care and the economy.

After 2012, the Republican Party hoped to continue along this path and expand its appeal to young people, minorities and women. But as the political scientists Gary Miller and Norm Schofield note, candidates and parties sometimes “engage in flanking moves so as to enlist coalitions of disaffected voters.” By changing positions on social issues that cut across party lines, they seek to attract voters who are only loosely attached to the other party.

Mr. Trump seems to have pulled off one of these maneuvers in shifting from traditional conservatism to a kind of race-inflected nationalism. Though the move cost him votes among college-educated whites, he attracted support among the larger group of whites without a college degree (a substantial minority of whom had backed Mr. Obama in 2012), pulling in just enough votes in the Rust Belt to tip the election.

Despite all the attention paid to economic anxiety as the basis for Mr. Trump’s appeal, the evidence to date is more consistent with his brand of identity politics being the most important cause of this shift in voting patterns from 2012 (though of course economic anxiety and group animus are not mutually exclusive).

Mr. Trump’s approach has the potential to transform the party system. First, the success of his campaign may encourage other Republicans to adopt his model. He has shown that the penalty for deviating from orthodox policies is minimal and that an ethno-nationalist style can have significant electoral advantages.

Second, though presidents cannot impose their will on most of domestic policy, they can help define the issues on the political agenda. In the choices that he makes, Mr. Trump may play down conflict over the size and scope of government and shift the political debate toward questions of national identity, immigration and culture.

Finally, few Republicans are likely to want to cross Mr. Trump and his energized supporters given the threat of a potential primary challenge in 2018.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Trump’s decision to name as his chief strategist Steve Bannon, the head of Breitbart, a website described in an article in the conservative National Review as catering to “a small but vocal fringe of white supremacists, anti-Semites and internet trolls.” Though the move lacked recent precedent, no Republicans in Congress objected, which made the issue into a partisan dispute with Democrats. Mr. Trump has also stirred emotions by promising to deport two to three million undocumented immigrants. By contrast, the fate of a tax cut — normally the top G.O.P. domestic policy priority — has received less attention (though the party will almost certainly pursue one).

Mr. Trump’s success is likely to provoke a response from Democrats that could accelerate this shift. They face an outraged liberal base that is likely to reject conciliatory messages intended to win back votes among the white working class.

The party might instead double down on cosmopolitan appeals to the minority voters and college-educated white voters who were the main target of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The strategy failed in 2016, but the incentive to try again is clear. Democrats came closer to winning several Sun Belt states where minority and college-educated white populations are growing, like Arizona and Georgia, than they did some traditional Midwest strongholds with higher numbers of noncollege whites, like Ohio and Iowa.

A focus on cosmopolitanism might make electoral sense for Democrats given the changing demographics of the country, but it could further weaken their appeal to whites without college degrees, dividing the electorate by race and class even more.

There is no choice here. If Trump won on the basis of racial appeals and xenophobic nationalism, there is nothing that Democrats can do to compete with that without selling their souls and demobilizing their own base.

We are going to have to continue to fight this out. If you believe in progress instead of nostalgia for a time that will never return, then you know what side you’re on.

I gotcher basket of deplorables for ya right here (in the White House)

I gotcher basket of deplorables for ya right here

by digby

This piece by Adele Stan in the American Prospect will catch you up on the latest Trump appointments. They are more deplorable that we ever might have imagined. The worst. From Steve Bannon to General Michael “Strangelove” Flynn to Jeff Sessions to Kris Kobach, he is literally picking the worst people in the world to run this country, homophobic, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, white nationalist authoritarian loons all of them.

Click over to read the dossier. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Stan concludes her piece with this:

The FBI just released its annual compendium of hate-crime incidents for the year 2015, finding a marked uptick—a 67 percent increase—in hate crimes against Muslims. While not all are attributable to the environment created by the Republican presidential campaign, Trump and the people around him have been loudly banging the war drums against Muslims and non-white immigrants for years. And just since the election, SPLC has collected anecdotes of some 400 incidents of hate directed against people for some aspect of their identity, be it religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

On November 12 in East Windsor, Connecticut, Trump acolytes gathered around a bonfire, joined by a man dressed in the white robes of the KKK, according to police. The next day, at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, anonymously authored flyers titled “Why White Women Shouldn’t Date Black Men” were distributed on campus. Two days later, the university condemned the screed—which said that black men were more likely to abuse women, give them sexually transmitted diseases and produce stupid children—and its appearance on campus. Then there was my own Election Day experience in Manhattan, when a normal-looking young man, accusing me of stepping in front of him as I walked to a cab as directed by a taxi-line dispatcher, called me a c**t and screamed he hoped Trump would win. Looks like he got his wish.

But hey, if the trains run on time we’re all good, amirite?

.

Welcome to the kleptocracy

Welcome to the kleptocracy

by digby

Ivanka Trump Executive VP of the Trump Organization sitting in on a diplomatic meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan

Nobody gave a damn about what Trump was going to do with his business holdings during the election. Not one question about it after a passing reference in an early GOP debate on CNBC.  The press hammered Clinton over the mere possibility of the appearance of conflict for which there was no evidence whatsoever, but never bothered with this at all. To me it’s the most shocking media malpractice of the whole trainwreck.

We have an oligarch coming into the White House. He is going to run this country like a kleptocracy. Yet we are obsessed with the fact that he said some stuff about trade which makes him some kind of working class hero. It’s a fucking joke.

Anyway, here’s the Wall Street Journal too little too late:

One reason 60 million voters elected Donald Trump is because he promised to change Washington’s culture of self-dealing, and if he wants to succeed he’s going to have to make a sacrifice and lead by example. Mr. Trump has so far indicated that he will keep his business empire but turn over management to his children, and therein lies political danger.

Mr. Trump has for decades run the Trump Organization and during the campaign said if he won the Presidency he’d turn over the keys to Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka, all of whom are now serving on the Trump transition. A company spokesperson says the family business is “in the process of vetting various structures” and that the ultimate arrangement “will comply with all applicable rules and regulations.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s lawyers have called the plan a “blind trust,” which past Presidents have used to protect their assets from the appearance of conflicts-of-interest. But that set-up typically involves liquid assets like bonds and stocks, not buildings or a branding empire. Mr. Trump will know how any given decision will affect, say, the old post office property in Washington, D.C. that he’s leasing from the federal government (another conflict). By law blind trusts are overseen by an independent manager, not family members.

The President is exempt from federal conflict-of-interest laws, but Mr. Trump’s plan is already hitting political turbulence. Earlier this week Ivanka Trump’s jewelry company took heat for promoting a $10,800 diamond bangle that Ms. Trump donned during a family interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” The company chalked up the incident to an overeager marketing executive, but this is only the beginning of such media catcalls. By the way, Ms. Trump is married to Jared Kushner, who could be a useful adviser in the White House.

Mr. Trump’s best option is to liquidate his stake in the company. Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and President Obama, respectively, have laid out a plan, which involves a leveraged buyout or an initial public offering.

Mr. Trump could put the cash proceeds in a true blind trust. The Trump children can keep the assets in their name, and he can transfer more to them as long as he pays a hefty gift tax. Finally, Mr. Trump should stipulate that he and his children will have no communication about family business matters.

The alternatives are fraught, perhaps even for the Trump Organization’s bottom line: Thanks to a Clinton Administration precedent, Presidents can face litigation in private matters—so the company will become a supermagnet for lawsuits. Rudy Giuliani lamented on television that divestment would put the Trump children “out of work,” but reorganizing the company may be better for business than unending scrutiny from the press. Progressive groups will soon be out of power and they are already shouting that the Trump family wants to profit from the Presidency.

The political damage to a new Administration could be extensive. If Mr. Trump doesn’t liquidate, he will be accused of a pecuniary motive any time he takes a policy position. For example, the House and Senate are eager to consider tax reform—and one sticking point will be the treatment of real estate, which will be of great interest to the Trump family business. Ditto for repealing the Dodd-Frank financial law, interest rates and so much more.

The conflicts span the globe, including a loan from the Bank of China and likely dealings with sovereign-wealth funds. Along the way Mr. Trump could expose himself to charges, however unfair, that he is violating the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits public officials from accepting gifts or payment from foreign governments.
Mixing money and politics could undermine his pledge to “drain the swamp” in Washington. If a backlash allows Democrats to retake the House in 2018, Mr. Trump and his business colleagues would field subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee. Ranking minority member Elijah Cummings this week expressed his enthusiasm for such a project, and answering daily questions about this can’t be how Mr. Trump wants to spend his political capital. 

There is no question that a Trump business sale would be painful and perhaps costly. We also dislike the double standard of ethics rules that put special burdens on business folks who want to enter politics, even as public-interest lawyers can move in and out of government without a peep of protest. Unlike liberals, Republicans like to work in the private economy. 

But this is the modern world of Washington. And remember that Hillary Clinton lost in part because the public didn’t want a President who mixed politics and personal gain at the State Department and Clinton Foundation. Millions of Americans have put their trust in Mr. Trump to succeed as President and improve their lives, not treat this as a four-year hiatus from his business. The presidential stakes are too high for Mr. Trump to let his family business become a daily political target.

Except of course she didn’t do it and Trump has been open from the beginning that he planned to.  Even if they liquidate, the legal complications are too vast not to have unprecedented conflicts of interest.  And who’s going to buy a “branding business” that isn’t associated with the brand? It can’t be done. And they will not do it so let’s stop pretending they will. They would have had to unwind these businesses years ago to make this work. Trump was still making deals during the campaign.

He was always disqualified from running because of this. But nobody bothered to look at it. And now it’s too late.

Heckuva job media. Thanks a lot.

.

Of course he’s going to torture

Of course he’s going to torture


by digby

I wrote about it for Salon today:

One of the most active conversations these days among political activists who oppose Donald Trump is about the extent to which Democrats should “work with” the new president, considering his white nationalist, authoritarian campaign and the people with whom he has surrounded himself. It’s both a strategic and a moral question, and the potential complications and rewards run in a number of different directions. Salon’s Simon Maloy addressed some of the problems in this piece on Thursday.

I tend to be in the “resist across the board” camp, because I greatly fear the normalization of the Trump administration. By normalization I mean not only the adoption of his draconian policies and cretinous behaviors as acceptable for leaders in our democracy, but also the abandonment of long-held norms that held the whole thing together. You cannot have a civil society based only on laws. People must believe that a basic level of decency and trust exists among our fellow human beings or it just doesn’t work. (Brian Beutler explores this subject in depth in this piece for the New Republic.)

But let’s be honest. Trump is not the first leader to break with the norms we all took for granted. Republicans have been pushing that envelope ever since they came into power in 1994 and used their House majority to stage a years-long witch hunt against Bill Clinton, which culminated in an embarrassing sideshow of an impeachment over a private sexual matter. They followed up by seizing the presidency under very dubious circumstances, blatantly using the levers of power, both partisan and familial, to do it. Then came the Iraq war, the most abusive break with norms of all, a deeply immoral decision to use a catastrophic terrorist attack as an excuse to fulfill a long-held, but irrelevant, foreign policy objective. We’ve been on shaky ground for a while.

But in my mind for all the broken norms, the one that is the most destructive of moral authority and civilization is the normalization of torture. I still find it stunning that we talk about it matter-of-factly as if it were an argument about whether or not to fund a highway bill rather than the grotesquely sadistic practice it is. A prohibition against torture wasn’t just a “norm” — torture was taboo, something so far outside of our understanding of right and wrong that it was beyond discussion, like pedophilia or cannibalism.

This is not to say Americans never did it, of course. It has happened at the hands of police and prison guards and in war zones around the world. It’s an ugly human impulse that’s always been with us. But until the Bush administration it had not been officially sanctioned for over half a century, since the Allies tried German and Japanese officers for the torture they inflicted on prisoners of war in World War II. Torture is a war crime under international treaty, and a felony under domestic law.

When the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects they didn’t admit what they were doing was torture, of course. But it was. They kept it a secret and created an elaborate legal framework to justify it. They destroyed video evidence of it. But regardless of their willingness to commit these war crimes, (based, by the way, on the advice of amateur hustlers who had no expertise in interrogation) they understood that this was a taboo that decent human beings could not countenance. Only Vice President Dick Cheney, the immoral conscience of the administration, boldly asserted that the thought waterboarding was a “no-brainer,” although he too insisted it wasn’t torture.

And sadly, despite ending the practice upon taking office, the Obama administration didn’t require any accountability for what had happened and the whole question was swept under the rug. Indeed, the administration fought the release of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s torture report and to this day have kept the full report under wraps. And so it became further normalized — never punished or fully repudiated — leaving it there for someone to come along and pick right up where the Bush administration left off.

Our next president is downright eager and excited to do it.He has proclaimed that he loves waterboarding, and has repeatedly promised to do “a lot more than that” as president. Despite all evidence to the contrary he insists that it works and “if it doesn’t work they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.” He has hinted broadly that he would even consider beheading, because his primary strategy is to be as brutal as ISIS in prove we are stronger than they are. He is a true believer in the practice of torture, out and proud, and will tell anyone who’ll listen that the America he will lead is a nation that tortures.

He has taken it to even darker levels than that, if it’s possible. Trump repeated a tall tale that’s swirled around the right-wing fever swamps for years about Gen. Jack Pershing summarily executing Muslim insurgents during the Spanish-American War:

He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood. And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’ And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem, OK?

Trump has promised to “go after” the wives and families of terrorist suspects saying, “I guess your definition of what I’d do, I’m going to leave that to your imagination.”

All the names the Trump transition team have floated for national security and foreign policy jobs are open to some form of torture. Rudy Giuliani isenthusiastic about it, as is former U.N. ambassador John Bolton. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who is being considered as CIA director, said he thinks Congress and the administration could work it out. Trump’s newly named national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, was non-committal about his personal beliefs but thinks the president should be able to threaten torture and war crimes as a negotiating stance.

The best you can say is that there is no longer any consensus that torture and war crimes are immoral taboos. There are still people who think it’s wrong, of course. But there are also those, like the president-elect or Sen. Tom Cotton, who believe such tactics should be used without restraint. It’s “controversial.”

Our new president won the office repeating lurid tales of torture, assassination and mass murder to cheering crowds, and promising to deploy those tactics if he won the White House. That’s now mainstream political thought in America. But he wasn’t the one who started it. We’ve been watching this slow-motion train wreck for a while. It just finally went off the rails.





Update: Trump announced the new CIA director today. It’s Congressman Mike Pompeo. Here’s what he believes about torture, surveillance, Gitmo etc:

Pompeo on the release of the 2014 Senate torture report:

“Our men and women who were tasked to keep us safe in the aftermath of 9/11 — our military and our intelligence warriors — are heroes, not pawns in some liberal game being played by the ACLU and Senator Feinstein,” Pompeo said in a statement on Dec. 9, 2014. “These men and women are not torturers, they are patriots. The programs being used were within the law, within the constitution, and conducted with the full knowledge Senator Feinstein. If any individual did operate outside of the program’s legal framework, I would expect them to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

“It is hard to imagine a sound reason that Senator Feinstein would put American operators and their families at risk—by demanding the release of details that are not in any way related to the legality or appropriateness of the programs. The intelligence collection programs described in the report have been in the news and hot topics for discussion for years. The sad conclusion left open is that her release of the report is the result of a narcissistic self-cleansing that is quintessentially at odds with her duty to the country.

“Moreover, the release of this report makes our nation is less secure. Our friends and allies across the world, who have worked closely with us to crush the Islamic jihad that threatens every Kansan and every American, now know the United States government will not honor its commitments. Their willingness to work with us in the future is now greatly diminished.”

Pompeo on Guantanamo Bay:

“GTMO has been a goldmine of intelligence about radical Islamic terrorism. I have traveled to GTMO and have seen the honorable and professional behavior of the American men and women in uniform, who serve at the detention facility,” Pompeo said in a statement on Nov. 18. “The detainees at GTMO are treated exceptionally well – so well that some have even declined to be resettled, instead choosing to stay at GTMO. It is delusional to think that any plan the president puts before Congress to relocate radical Islamic terrorists to the U.S, and potentially Fort Leavenworth Kansas, will make our country safer. The reality is that this proposal will ultimately put Kansans and Americans in danger.”

Pompeo on the Iran deal:

“It’s not a question whether America can prevent a nuclear Iran or stop Russian aggression; it’s a question of whether (the Obama) administration has the backbone to use the tools and solutions available,” Pompeo said on Dec. 3, 2014. “Each of these nations poses real threats to America and the West – what is needed is not ambiguity, but clarity, forcefulness and commitments that do not exceed America’s willingness to fulfill them.

“Ayatollah Khamenei watches America allow Iran to expand its power while our President writes him missives ensuring we will protect Iran’s interests. This is dangerous. The Islamic Republic cannot even feed its own people without access to markets and our President rewards that nation, which has killed countless Americans, with sanctions relief. Congress should immediately act to stop all oil shipments out of Iran, reinstitute economic sanctions and demand that our allies do so as well. We should make clear that nuclear enrichment is not acceptable inside of Iran for any purpose and, as President Bush once said, those who harbor terrorists who kill Americans will be treated in the same manner as if they had committed the act of terror themselves.”

Pompeo on NSA spying:

“I believe that program has proven to be a very valuable asset for the intelligence community and for law enforcement,” Pompeo said in an interview with McClatchy in January. “We ought not to take that tool away from our intelligence community while the threats are as great as they are today.”

“(Americans) understood this was a monitoring program, and it’s not,” Pompeo said. “Not a single email was read or call was listened to without the due process the constitution requires.”

Fake news, fake consciousness

Fake news, fake consciousness

by digby

Donald Trump is making up fake news and people are believing it. He did it throughout the campaign and now he’s doing it again.  This is a big problem people. Paul Waldman:

On Thursday evening, Donald Trump sent this inspiring pair of tweets, in which he perhaps unknowingly revealed exactly how he plans to make America great again:

Just got a call from my friend Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky – no Mexico

I worked hard with Bill Ford to keep the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. I owed it to the great State of Kentucky for their confidence in me!

Well, that sounds terrific! Here a Ford plant was all set to move to Mexico, and Donald Trump “worked hard” to keep it in Kentucky. I’ll bet you know where the story goes from here, don’t you?

Yes, your suspicion was correct. Ford was never going to shut a plant in Kentucky and move it to Mexico. The company does have production in Mexico, and it has moved around which models are built where, but Trump hasn’t saved any autoworkers’ jobs (if you want to credit a president with saving autoworkers’ jobs, you should thank the guy who’s still in office for another two months).

But I can promise you that in a very short time, millions of Trump supporters will be convinced that he saved thousands of jobs in Kentucky with just the force of his will. As Jesse Singal observed, within minutes of Trump sending his bogus tweet, the story was spreading in its fake version through the conservative media ecosystem. It’s an inverse of the bitterly sarcastic “Thanks, Obama” meme, wherein the president’s critics blamed him for everything that might go wrong in the country or their own lives, right down to whether their boss was a jerk. Trump’s enthusiastic fans will find a way in their own minds to give him credit for anything, and they already are. Gallup recently reported that in the week before the election, just 16 percent of Republicans said the economy was improving; in the week after, that number shot up by 33 percentage points.

Trump is providing us a preview of what he’ll do as president: He’ll construct his own fake world for those who support him to inhabit, in which he’s always right and deserves credit and praise for everything good that happens anywhere, whether he had anything to do with it or not. If there’s positive news, he’ll say it happened because of him. If there isn’t any, he’ll just make something up and take credit for that.

We saw this fairly often during the campaign. In the first primary debate, Trump said, “NATO is opening up a major terror division. … I’m sure I’m not going to get credit for it, but that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO.” In fact, they weren’t actually opening up a new terror division, and they’d been working on terrorism for years. When Iran released four American prisoners in January after months of delicate negotiations with the U.S. government, Trump said, “I think I might have had something to do with it, if you want to know the truth.” In September he tweeted, “Do people notice Hillary is copying my airplane rallies — she puts the plane behind her like I have been doing from the beginning.” That’s despite the fact that presidential candidates have been holding rallies in front of airplanes pretty much since there were airplanes.

Trump also took credit for Anheuser-Busch’s decision to temporarily rename Budweiser “America” this summer. He was under the impression that before his campaign there were no deportations (“Does everyone see that the Democrats and President Obama are now, because of me, starting to deport people who are here illegally. Politics!”). And this isn’t something he started doing when he ran for president; in 2014 he took credit for Apple’s decision to make a large iPhone.

As we go forward, you can expect Trump to regularly take credit for things that Obama did. Remember when he claimed that despite the fact that the official unemployment rate is below 5 percent, the “real” (i.e., imaginary) rate is more like 40 percent? Well, don’t be surprised if after the January jobs report, Trump says, “Unemployment is now under 5 percent! Everyone is saying it’s because I’m making America great!” He’ll probably take credit for low inflation, the fact that we have the lowest proportion of uninsured Americans in history, and the opening weekend gross for “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.”

That is what leads to this.

In case you were wondering, Trump does not give a million dollars a month to fake charities, he didn’t recruit immigrants so they would have a place to live and he hasn’t traveled the world on behalf of the kids. It’s just nuts.

What happens when these people get really frustrated with those of us who are living in the real world? They’re already very, very angry. 

.

The new abnormal by @BloggersRUs

The new abnormal
by Tom Sullivan

Luigi Zingales survived Silvio Berlusconi’s tenure in Italy and has some advice for the American resistance:

Mr. Berlusconi was able to govern Italy for as long as he did mostly thanks to the incompetence of his opposition. It was so rabidly obsessed with his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared; it focused only on personal attacks, the effect of which was to increase Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity. His secret was an ability to set off a Pavlovian reaction among his leftist opponents, which engendered instantaneous sympathy in most moderate voters. Mr. Trump is no different.

Pavlovian? Leftist incompetence? Say it ain’t so. Zingales doesn’t address when an administration is incompetent.

The street protests are counterproductive, writes Zingales, as are the petitions calling for electors to be faithless in performing their duties. Cannot say I disagree.

But believing the Italian experience provides a template, the professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago believes the Democratic resistance should treat Trump “as an ordinary opponent,” as Romano Prodi and Matteo Renzi did with Berlusconi. Well. I’m not a student of Italian politics, but I don’t recall Berlusconi threatening to use nuclear weapons or waterboard suspected terrorists.

One big fear is that treating Trump “as an ordinary opponent” will merely normalize his aberrant behaviors. If anything, what the left should do is recognize that the game has changed and not fall back on its normally ineffective tactics to oppose a completely abnormal opponent.

Nancy LeTourneau noticed the same tweet I did:

Perhaps some subtlety (and guile) should be thrown into the mix with any political brute force. LeTourneau cites Charles Gaba‘s (Brainwrap at DKos) comments on how the sitting president is whispering in Trump’s ear:

Think about the amount of love of country, and steely-eyed discipline, President Obama must have to do this. Think about how much he must have to clench his jaw and grit his teeth to be willing to patiently guide this racist, misogynistic, xenophobic con-artist egocentric moron through the most basic, rudimentary concepts of executive government…all purely because he knows that like it or not, he’s turning over the steering wheel to the nation over to him in just 67 days for the next 4 years and he’d prefer that the man-child not crash the country into a tree when he takes the wheel.

Secondly, she observes that rather than working at not normalizing Trump, the president himself is working to enforce existing norms in the transition when he says “It’s part of what makes this country work. And as long as I’m President, we are going to uphold those norms and cherish and uphold those ideals.”

Trump will never be normal. But rather than pitching out norms altogether in pushing back, perhaps demanding an adherence to and enforcement (where possible) of established norms is required to highlight just how abnormal this man is. If the country is to regain its footing, maybe the left should aggressively define what’s normal again and push in that direction while also being the last voice Trump hears.

A little bit of Obi Wan plus a little bit of Han Solo, perhaps.

He doesn’t really mean it

He doesn’t really mean it

by digby

He was just playing a part, right? And even if wants to do the things he says he wants to do, he can’t really do them. So relax folks. He’s no worse than anyone else.

I’ve been meaning to post this newspaper article from 1922 that’s been making the rounds:

On 10 February 2015, the New York Times re-released the first article they ever published about Adolf Hitler, who was then the chairman of the Nazi party. The story, dated 21 November 1922 and republished in the Times’ “First Glimpses” section, opened with this introduction:

On Nov. 21, 1922, The New York Times gave its readers their first glimpse of Hitler, in a profile that got a lot of things right — its description of his ability to work a crowd into a fever pitch, ready then and there to stage a coup, presaged his unsuccessful beer hall putsch less than a year later. But the article also got one crucial point very wrong — despite what “several reliable, well-informed sources” told The Times in the third paragraph from the bottom, his anti-Semitism was every bit as genuine and violent as it sounded.

This re-release was widely covered by other news outlets immediately after it was posted in 2015, with many of them suggesting or implying its description bore similarities to the political movement of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
An excerpt from that 1922 article reads as follows:

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes. 

A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”

This story was published early in both Hitler’s career and in the existence of the Nazi party itself, whose followers were then called ‘Hakenkreuzler,’ or ‘swastika wavers.’ In November 1922, when this article was first published, Hitler had been Nazi party chairman for just over a year, and it had been only three years since he had delivered his first public political speech. Hitler’s failed attempt to overthrow the local government in Bavaria, known as the “Beer Hall Putsch,” was one year away.
The Times reached out to Hitler for comment in 1922, which he declined, as described in the story:

“Herr Hitler regrets he is unable to meet you as he is leaving town on important business for several days,” was the answer received by The New York Times correspondent. His important business was going to Regensburg with three special trainloads of Munich admirers for the purpose of holding a series of reactionary inflammatory meetings and incidentally to beat up protesting Socialists and Communists with blackjacks if any dare protest, which is becoming increasingly rarer.

By the way, Trump has announced that he’s resuming his rallies in a couple of weeks to “thank” all his supporters.

George Gigicos, the head of the Trump advance team, spoke to reporters in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City Thursday, where he said their team is working on “the victory tour now.” 

He asked Trump’s former campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who was behind him, to ask when the tour would be happening. 

She came forward to reporters and said, “‘Thank you tour.’ It’s not a ‘victory tour,'” to which Gigicos repeated, “Thank you tour.” 

First on CNN: Donald Trump, Mitt Romney to meet this weekend
“Thank America tour,” Conway said. 

Gigicos said the tour would be happening in “the next couple of weeks — after Thanksgiving” and would focus on “the swing states we flipped over.”

You know who else held big victory rallies?  

.