Skip to content

Month: May 2018

A fleeting moment of celebration by @BloggersRUs

A fleeting moment of celebration
by Tom Sullivan


Hampton Park, Charleston, SC

The U.S. flag that went out first thing this morning has already come in out of the rain. Memorial Day parades in places across the Southeast will be soggy.

The Washington Post’s Editorial Board remembers how the parade along the Champs-Elysees after the liberation of Paris in 1944 was merely a fleeting moment of celebration for troops who would die on the march east to Berlin:

In a democratic country, it takes a deep and widespread sense of obligation to wage that sort of struggle. People can be, and were, compelled to serve, but there are limits to what a decent government can do to enforce compliance with its laws — especially by those who are morally opposed to killing or even, as in one famous Supreme Court case, to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In the end, the vital component of a free people’s defense is a sense of obligation, set forth at the U.S. Military Academy but understood by all who serve: Duty. Honor. Country. These are not Twitter words. They are engraved in our national consciousness.

For others they have become shibboleths of tribal loyalty, words used to identify friend from foe among kinsmen.

I was already considering republishing an account of my visit to the site of what Yale historian David W. Blight considers the first Memorial Day parade. The Post notes it as well:

It came on May 1, 1865, less than a month after the surrender at Appomattox, when thousands of former slaves and other African Americans in Charleston, S.C., pooled their efforts to give proper burial to several hundred Union soldiers who had been held as prisoners of war at a racetrack and had died there under atrocious conditions. The field was covered with flowers for the occasion, and schoolchildren and women’s groups marched and sang patriotic songs, including “We’ll Rally Round the Flag” and, of course, the national anthem. It was a spectacular display of love of country, and of hope for the future.

“They were themselves the true patriots,” writes Mr. Blight. But, he adds, “Despite the size and some newspaper coverage of the event, its memory was suppressed by white Charlestonians in favor of their own version of the day. From 1876 on, after white Democrats took back control of South Carolina politics and the Lost Cause defined public memory and race relations, the day’s racecourse origin vanished.”

We visited on New Year’s Day 2016 after stopping by Mother Emanuel AME Church, site of the recent mass shooting, where slave revolt leader Denmark Vesey once preached.

I wrote then:

Sunday morning we happened to drive by The Citadel, removed from the business district and off the usual tourist track. I had never been in that quadrant of the city before, but remembered a recent blog post that explained how Memorial Day had its origins in Charleston in a spot just east of the military college. Of course, we went looking for it:

… During the final year of the war, the Confederates had converted the city’s Washington Race Course and Jockey Club into an outdoor prison. Union captives were kept in horrible conditions in the interior of the track; at least 257 died of disease and were hastily buried in a mass grave behind the grandstand.

After the Confederate evacuation of Charleston black workmen went to the site, reburied the Union dead properly, and built a high fence around the cemetery. They whitewashed the fence and built an archway over an entrance on which they inscribed the words, “Martyrs of the Race Course.”

The symbolic power of this Low Country planter aristocracy’s bastion was not lost on the freedpeople, who then, in cooperation with white missionaries and teachers, staged a parade of 10,000 on the track. A New York Tribune correspondent witnessed the event, describing “a procession of friends and mourners as South Carolina and the United States never saw before.”

The procession was led by 3,000 black schoolchildren carrying armloads of roses and singing the Union marching song “John Brown’s Body.” Several hundred black women followed with baskets of flowers, wreaths and crosses. Then came black men marching in cadence, followed by contingents of Union infantrymen. Within the cemetery enclosure a black children’s choir sang “We’ll Rally Around the Flag,” the “Star-Spangled Banner” and spirituals before a series of black ministers read from the Bible.

After the dedication the crowd dispersed into the infield and did what many of us do on Memorial Day: enjoyed picnics, listened to speeches and watched soldiers drill. Among the full brigade of Union infantrymen participating were the famous 54th Massachusetts and the 34th and 104th United States Colored Troops, who performed a special double-columned march around the gravesite.

The fallen were later moved, most to a national cemetery in Beaufort, S.C. The race track became a city park named after Confederate General (and later governor) Wade Hampton III. An historic marker commemorating this first Memorial Day was installed in just 2010. Wherever it was, we missed seeing it. Even reading a photo carefully (go do it now), one can easily miss that the majority of participants were former slaves. You have to know your history and read between the lines. At a time when news agencies cannot bring themselves to mention that the armed, Bundy insurrectionists in Oregon are white (or nearly all) or refer to them as anything more dangerous than “activists” or “occupiers,” on this coast even a five year-old historical marker in a gentrifying, heavily black city tiptoes around the fact that the honorable actions it commemorates were performed by black, former slaves.

Then again, newer, more prominent, and a surprise was the statue below, installed at Hampton Park just two years ago. Unlike the other marker, the statue’s base provides a clear background to who Denmark Vesey was and why he has found a place in Hampton Park:

* * * * * * * *

For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

The leaks and the leaking leakers who leak them

The leaks and the leaking leakers who leak them

by digby

For a little chuckle on a Sunday evening:

Shortly after word leaked that Kelly Sadler had taken a nasty shot at John McCain, President Trump convened a meeting in the Oval Office for a tiny group of communications staffers, according to sources familiar with the gathering. Sadler, Mercedes Schlapp, Raj Shah, and John Kelly all gathered in front of the Resolute Desk for a conversation with Trump about the leaking problem. They were the only people in the room, though the door to the outer Oval was open.

What happened: The president told Sadler she wouldn’t be fired for her remark. He added, separately in the conversation, that he’s no fan of McCain. Then Trump, who had grown obsessed with the leaking problem, told Sadler he wanted to know who the leakers were. Sadler then stunned the room: To be completely honest, she said, she thought one of the worst leakers was Schlapp, her boss.

Schlapp pushed back aggressively and defended herself in the room. And in follow up conversations after the meeting, some of Schlapp’s colleagues also came to her defense. (In a prior meeting, she had said, “You can put this on the record: I stand with Kelly Sadler”). Sadler went on to name other people she also suspected of being leakers.

The allegation — like a previous internal meeting to deal with leaking — ultimately got leaked to us.

It’s a free-for-all in there with everyone in the White House, including the president, leaking and accusing others of leaking.

He runs a very tight ship.

.

The Nobel Participation Trophy

The Nobel Participation Trophy

by digby

“Considering Barack Obama received the prize for simply having a pulse and then recklessly destabilizing the globe, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could keep a straight face while questioning if Trump deserves one,” Kelsey Knight, a spokesman for Rep. Jim Renacci, an Ohio Republican running for the Senate, said in a statement…

We all know this is just Trump and the Republicans demanding they be get the prize because Obama got it, but still, considering that he’s the most bellicose, bloodthirsty, self-proclaimed torture loving psycho president we’ve ever had, it’s just too Orwellian for words that they are demanding the Peace Prize for President “bomb the shit out of ’em and keep the oil” Trump:

The idea that Trump deserves a Nobel first originated when the possibility of that summit seemed strong. In the letter sent on May 2 to the Nobel Committee (PDF), a group of House Republicans lauded the president for bringing North and South Korea together in an effort to end “the Korean War [and to] seek to reunify their countries[.]” Trump was also credited in starting “the process to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula” with “peace through strength policies” that brought North Korea “to the negotiating table.”

At the time, those lawmakers were mocked and criticized for the premature celebration of the summit’s success. And, sure enough, things soon began to fall apart. Two weeks after the letter was sent, the North canceled their talks with the South in reaction to joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises. A few weeks later, the planned summit between North Korea and the U.S. was canceled with a letter from the president’s desk.

Some of the lawmakers who initially wanted Trump to get the Nobel have remained committed to the idea even as they acknowledge that the award may not come as quickly.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), one of the signatories, said the president should be “commended” for getting more done than “any other of our former presidents,” but that the Nobel would have to come after the talks.

Why wait? He also should get the Medal of Honor for his bravery in the GOP debates against Li’l Marco and Lyin’ Ted and I think it’s obvious that he should receive the Jean Herscholt Humanitarian Award for his contributions to

Just get on with it, then name his horse to the Senate and declare him Emperor for life.

Will there be protests against Trump and Ivanka?

Will there be protests against Trump and Ivanka?

by digby

Oh no. They’re coming to California:

President Trump’s daughter and White House aide Ivanka Trump will visit California to campaign for House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) next month, a sign that the Republican could fear a tough reelection battle in November.

Trump will visit Fresno on June 18 to campaign for Nunes and other local Republican House candidates alongside House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as part of the GOP’s “Keep The House” tour, according to local ABC News affiliate KFSN-TV.

“Oh yeah, we are excited,” Fresno GOP party chair Fred Vanderhoof told the news affiliate. “She’s popular, anybody from the Trump family is welcome, and we are honored and excited to see them.”

For some, Trump’s decision to back Nunes was unsurprising.

“I don’t think it’s really a surprise, particularly for Nunes, given that he’s been so loyal to the president,” said Michael Evans, chair of the Fresno County Democratic Party. “I think they would be viewing this as some sort of payback, but it does raise the question are they concerned about Devin Nunes election prospects this year.”

Vanderhoof addressed Republican concerns that a Democratic wave could take back the House in November’s midterm elections.

“We can’t be complacent. We know the Democrats are targeting the house they want to take over the house and that is probably going to go through California is to succeed,” he said.

Nunes, who won reelection with 67 percent of the vote in 2016, faces a tough Democratic challenge from Fresno County Deputy District Attorney Andrew Janz.

He has only been to California once since he was elected. He barely acknowledged the devastating wildfires and related mudslides last year that killed nearly a hundred people and destroyed 10,000 structures and never bothered to show up as he did to the states that voted for him.

But that’s fine. He should probably stay away. He’s not very popular here. If he tried to throw paper towels at the people here I suspect they would throw them back to him.

Trump’s overall approval rating [in California] dropped to 31 percent in the poll, conducted online from April 16 to 22, from a high of 39 percent in March 2017.

The poll showed Trump’s approval is lagging even in the 14 California congressional districts held by his fellow Republicans. In the seven GOP-held districts targeted by Democrats this year, only 41 percent approve of his performance, while 59 disapprove.

And I doubt that Ivanka is any more of a draw.

I haven’t heard of any protests but I’d imagine there will be some. I’ll keep you posted if I hear anything.

.

Bolton vs Mattis and POmpeo

Bolton vs Mattis and Pompeo

by digby

I keep hearing on TV that Bolton was responsible for Trump’s pull-out but has lost the latest round on the North Korea summit because Mattis and Pompeo have convinced him to think again.

I have my doubts. Trump wants the pageantry of the meeting so he can strut around comparing himself to Jesus and get his prize (or whine incessantly about not getting it which works just as well with his perpetually aggrieved followers) but he does not care about or have any interest in the substance of an agreement. On that count Bolton is winning by doing no preparation for one.

Recall Bolton’s previous success in this arena during his stint in the Bush administration:

“Bolton undertook a dedicated campaign to destroy the U.S. nuclear deal with North Korea, which he’s been very clear about ― he doesn’t even hide it. So my guess is that Bolton will undertake precisely the same campaign [with the Iran deal], and, in this case, he will reinforce all of the president’s worst tendencies,” he said. “It’s a good deal, and Bolton’s probably going to do a lot of damage to it.”

The U.S. signed an “Agreed Framework” with North Korea in 1994 to freeze Pyongyang’s nuclear power plant program. After Washington received intelligence that North Korea’s nuclear program was advancing more rapidly than expected, Bolton wrote: “This was the hammer I had been looking for to shatter the Agreed Framework” in his memoir, Surrender Is Not an Option.

He has always wanted a military solution in North Korea. He still does and he is closer to the seat of power than he’s ever been before.

If Trump listens to Mattis and Pompeo it’s possible that they can let him have his little moment and get him out of this without too much damage. If Bolton carries the day as he obviously did when he worked the president up and persuaded him to call off the summit, well …

.

Make it stop

Make it stop

by digby

On Memorial Day, this was the message from your president:

President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday that the Russia probe has “devastated and destroyed” the reputations of people, continuing his weekend Twitter assault against the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“Who’s going to give back the young and beautiful lives (and others) that have been devastated and destroyed by the phony Russia Collusion Witch Hunt? They journeyed down to Washington, D.C., with stars in their eyes and wanting to help our nation. … They went back home in tatters,” the president wrote on Twitter.

Trump has repeatedly called special counsel Mueller’s probe a “witch hunt,” a charge that in recent weeks has been coupled with renewed calls from his allies to end the probe soon. Some House lawmakers have gone even further, arguing that reports stating a confidential FBI informant met with Trump campaign officials means the investigation is irrevocably tainted.

“With Spies, or “Informants” as the Democrats like to call them because it sounds less sinister (but it’s not), all over my campaign,” Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday, “even from a very early date, why didn’t the crooked highest levels of the FBI or “Justice” contact me to tell me of the phony Russia problem?”

It’s unclear who Trump is referring to when he says individuals have “went back home in tatters.” A score of former campaign aides have reportedly met with Mueller’s team along with congressional investigators — racking up significant legal bills in the process.

Where have all the flowers gone?

.

He is our King

by digby

Now imagine him saying this about Hillary Clinton.

Now pick up the pieces of your brain from the head explosion.

.

Trump partners with criminals by @BloggersRUs

Trump partners with criminals
by Tom Sullivan

“Democrats are losing the only fight that matters,” shouts a headline at Vanity Fair. They nevertheless seem to be doing rather well in elections that postdate the election of the sitting president.

But it is not electoral fights to which Peter Hamby refers. Democrats are losing the fight to woo the jury in the court of public opinion. In that, the president dominates the battle space. In an age in which Americans possess attention spans erroneously reported as less than that of a goldfish (or a gnat), Democrats insist on communicating in forgettable fact and nuance to a population already awash in information. The man of 3,000 lies blurts out short, inflammatory untruths and, through repetition and the power of the bully pulpit, commands the attention of both press and public. He may be a slow-motion train wreck, but we cannot look away. Try as they might, Democrats cannot get the public to look their way, Hamby insists.

Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu explains that the president “offers simple slogans, repeated a thousandfold, and he always speaks as a commander rather than a petitioner…” He is, as Bill McKibben wrote of Christian fundamentalists, “like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track.” He knows Americans believe it important to be proud … not of anything in particular, just proud.

Hamby writes (emphasis mine):

“The way to disempower Trump is to ignore him, but its too hard even for his opponents to do it,” Wu told me over the phone recently. “It has to be a pure attention battle. If you were another network and Trump was I Love Lucy, what do you do? You can’t necessarily spend all your time criticizing I Love Lucy because that will just build it up. You need your own programming and to develop your own characters and celebrities who have to be as interesting and compelling. You need to have your own show. And I don’t think Democrats have their own show other than the ‘I Hate Trump’ show.”

The Democrats’ brain trust insists they have a message this year. It’s the economy, stupid, and polling bears that out. Americans are concerned with the cost of health care, education and gasoline. Recent elections showed that worked for them. If only Democrats could make themselves heard, voters would know that. But ignoring the president’s scandals allows them to go unchallenged. As Hamby notes, a poll out last week showed 59 percent of Americans are unaware that the Mueller investigation has uncovered crimes, issued indictments, and secured some guilty pleas. What they know is WITCH HUNT.

The reality-show president is fixated on ratings. He knows conflict makes good TV. He dishes it up to hold eyeballs and ears. By contrast, Democrats’ events aren’t even good C-Span viewing:

“This is still a mistake that Democrats make. This a party still led largely by people who came of age in the last century rather than this one,” said [former Virginia congressman Tom] Perriello. “This old idea was that ‘everyone knows their own district best’ and you can go home and have your own messages. That made sense a generation ago when people got the majority of their news from local sources. Now the vast majority of information comes from national sources and social media. Even local news is full of national news packages. Even if we wanted to not talk about Trump, that’s not an option. The media is going to talk about Trump, and Trump is going to be the story they talk about whether we want him to or not.”

Perriello told me that Democrats should absolutely focus on health care premiums and the fact that the tax bill overwhelming benefits the wealthiest. But they should also be prepared to talk about the Trump investigation in a coherent way, crystallizing the fact that the sitting President of the United States has surrounded himself with grifters and criminals who have been indicted for bank fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and whatever other charges may come. “The more it’s about Russia and the 2016 elections, that feels backwards-looking and seems like a partisan lens,” he said. “It works when when it’s about corruption and crime and the fact that the president shouldn’t be above the law . . . Trump has put his narrative out there, and quite frankly, Democrats haven’t put it out there or talked about it in effective ways. When Trump says ‘witch hunt’ or ‘deep state,’ from the Democrats you sort of get nothing. And then Mueller says nothing, so it starts to sound like maybe this is all just silly partisan politics.”

Democrats have to walk and chew gum. But they’ve also got to distill their messages to digestible bites. “What’s your 27-9-3 on that?” a friend asked another activist at a conference last weekend — 27 words, nine seconds, three messages. For post-November 8 political newcomers, that concept may be new. For liberals who like to hear themselves talk, it’s like asking them to go on a 3-day fast.

Under president DEEP STATE, 27 words is too long.

Trump partners with criminals.

19 indictments and counting.

Computers count Trump’s lies. For truths you only need fingers.

Why are Trump’s “best people” facing indictment?

Corrupt.

What is the narrative of innocence?” asks CIA Officer John Sipher in conversation with Committee to Investigate Russia Advisory Board members, Rob Reiner, General Michael Hayden, and Clint Watts.”What is the narrative of why a campaign trying to win primaries in Iowa would need to be talking to Russians at all?” This is not how innocent people behave.

“It has to be a pure attention battle.” Elizabeth Warren is one of the few Democrats have with the skill to cut through the noise. She needs to be front and center.

* * * * * * * *

For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

SIFF-ting through cinema, Pt. 2 by Dennis Hartley @denofcinema5

SIFF-ting through cinema, Pt. 2

By Dennis Hartley

The Seattle International Film Festival kicked off May 17, so over the next several posts I’ll be sharing highlights. SIFF is showing 433 films over 25 days. Navigating such an event is no easy task, even for a dedicated buff. Yet, I trudge on (cue the world’s tiniest violin). Hopefully, some of these films will be coming soon to a theater near you…



Being There (USA) – Like Sidney Lumet’s Network, Hal Ashby’s 1979 film becomes more vital with age (and especially timely, considering Donald J. Trump’s ascendancy). Adapted from Jerzy Kosinki’s novel by frequent (and here uncredited) Ashby collaborator Robert C. Jones, it is a wry political fable about a simpleton (Peter Sellers, in one of his greatest performances) who stumbles his way into becoming a Washington D.C. power player within an alarmingly short period of time. Richly drawn, finely layered, and superbly acted; from the leads (Sellers, Melvyn Douglas, Shirley MacLaine, Jack Warden, Richard Dysart) to smallest roles (especially the wonderful Ruth Attaway).



The Drummer and the Keeper
(Ireland, USA) – Irish singer-songwriter Nick Kelly’s debut feature is a touching drama about an “odd-couple” friendship that develops between a troubled young drummer with bi-polar disorder and another young man with Asperger’s Syndrome. While it initially borrows liberally from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Rainman, the film eventually establishes its own unique voice, and thankfully avoids the cloying sentimentality of, say, I Am Sam. An infusion of that dark, dry Irish humor helps as well.

Rating: *** (Plays May 31 & June 1)


Every Act of Life
(USA) –I’m not really a theater person (but some of my best friends are…does that count?), so I confess that I’ve only seen one of multiple-Tony Award winning playwright/librettist Terrence McNally’s works-and that was the movie version (The Ritz, if you must pry). That said, I found Jeff Kaufman’s affable documentary portrait of the prolific writer and gay activist enlightening and engaging. The film tells his life story, from small-town Texas roots to his inevitable trek to NYC to conquer Broadway. Fascinating archival footage, plus colorful anecdotes from the likes of Nathan Lane (one of McNally’s latter-day acting muses), Rita Moreno, Meryl Streep and Bryan Cranston, all topped off by candid reminiscences from McNally (still going strong at 79).

Rating: *** (Plays May 31 & June 2)






Rueben Blades Is Not My Name (Panama, Argentina, Columbia) – Abner Benaim’s intimate portrait of polymath Rueben Blades is full of surprises. For example, you wouldn’t think an accomplished singer-songwriter-musician, actor, Harvard-educated lawyer, politician and social activist would find time to geek out over his sizable comic book and memorabilia collection. “You’re the first ones to film in here. I don’t let anyone in here,” he tells the filmmakers, leading them into this sanctum sanctorum within his Chelsea, NY apartment, wistfully adding, “You’re the first and the last.” Wistful, perhaps because he is now voluntarily closing a major chapter of his life (touring and performing) to focus his energy into running for President of Panama (as one does). An inspiring film.

Rating: **** (Plays May 27 and June 5)

Ryuichi Sakamoto: Coda (Japan, USA) – There’s a wonderful moment of Zen in Stephen Nomura Schible’s documentary where his subject, Japanese composer Ryuichi Sakamoto, after much experimentation with various “found” sounds, finally gets the “perfect” tonality for one single note of a work in progress. “It’s strangely bright,” he observes, with the delighted face of a child on Christmas morning, “but also…melancholic.” One could say the same about Schible’s film; it’s strangely bright, but also melancholic. You could also say it is but a series of such Zen moments; a deeply reflective and meditative glimpse at the most intimate workings of the creative process. It’s also a document of Sakamoto’s quiet fortitude, as he returns to the studio after taking a hiatus to engage in anti-nuke activism and to battle his cancer. A truly remarkable film.

Rating: **** (Plays May 29, May 30, & June 8)

* (Austria) – You see, the thing about “experimental films” is that…they’re experiments. And the viewer gets the dubious privilege of being the lab rat. How do I describe this one in particular? To paraphrase Keir Dullea in the film 2010: “My god, it’s full of stars!” Hence, the film’s title. I could also describe it as being 90 minutes too long, because Johann Lurf’s, high concept collage would have made a great 10 minute short. Lurf curated every filmed image of starry skyscapes he could get his mitts on, spanning from 1905 to 2017, and then condensed them chronologically into a narrative-free film. The clever bit is, you also get a condensed look at how film technology itself has evolved over 100 years. Something else you may get from this 99-minute flash-cut endurance test: a bout of vertigo, or an epileptic seizure. You have been warned: Watch at your own risk.

Rating: **½ (Plays June 2 & June 3)

More SIFF coverage at Den of Cinema!

On Facebook
On Twitter

— Dennis Hartley

Trade war clusterf*ck

Trade war clusterfuck

by digby

I guess the lesson here is that you start a trade war with the president you have not the president you wish you had:

By the time American negotiators wrapped up high-level talks with a visiting Chinese delegation last week, President Trump’s ambitions for a multibillion-dollar trade agreement had, for the time being, shriveled into a blandly worded communiqué without any dollar figures. It was not clear that the talks set a path to success.

Ceaseless infighting and jockeying for influence on the White House’s trade team helped deprive Mr. Trump of a quick victory on his most cherished policy agenda, several people involved in the talks said. The deep internal divisions carried over into how officials characterized the agreement and muddied the outlook for the next phase of the negotiations between Washington and Beijing.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday that the United States would hold off on imposing tariffs on China, putting the trade war “on hold,” but hours later, the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, warned the Chinese that the Trump administration might yet impose tariffs.

On Friday, Mr. Trump’s chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, told reporters that China had offered to reduce its trade surplus with the United States by $200 billion. Two days later, he said that the number was merely a “rough ballpark estimate,” and that the two countries never expected to reach an agreement and merely planned to issue a statement laying out next steps.

It was a muddled end to a chaotic process — one that revealed an American team riven by conflicts over tactics and policy, working for a president eager for a victory but torn by his desire to have a smooth summit meeting next month with North Korea, over which China wields enormous influence.

Now the future of the negotiations falls to Wilbur Ross, the 80-year-old commerce secretary, who will travel to China in the coming days to try to nail down the commitments that proved so elusive in last week’s negotiations.

Mr. Ross brings uncertain credentials to this task: Last summer, he attempted to strike a deal with China to reduce its steel production capacity. When Mr. Trump heard of the plan, he berated Mr. Ross and demanded that his advisers bring him a package of draconian sanctions.

On Monday, Mr. Trump put the best face on the talks, highlighting a Chinese pledge to buy more American agricultural exports. “Under our potential deal with China,” he said on Twitter, “they will purchase from our Great American Farmers practically as much as our Farmers can produce.”

It was far from the take-no-prisoners tone he struck before the Chinese arrived, when the president talked about a deal that would overhaul almost every element of the commercial relationship between the United States and its greatest economic competitor.

“The U.S. has very little to give,” he tweeted last week, “because it has given so much over the years. China has much to give!”

In fact, the Chinese were well aware of the divisions in the administration’s trade team — and set out to exploit them, according to people briefed on the deliberations. They recognized that Mr. Trump’s advisers were split between implacable critics of China, like Mr. Lighthizer and Peter Navarro, the director of the White House national trade council; and free-traders who were more sympathetic, like Mr. Kudlow, Mr. Ross and Mr. Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive.

The divisions within the American team revolve around whether the United States should try to secure a short-term deal with China that would benefit some industries and avert a potential trade war, a path that Mr. Mnuchin prefers, or whether they should pressure China to make more fundamental changes to its economy, a path that Mr. Navarro and Mr. Lighthizer say is preferable.

Mr. Mnuchin led the Treasury Department in declining to label China a currency manipulator, defying one of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises. He joined Gary D. Cohn, Mr. Trump’s former chief economic adviser, in quietly arguing against trade measures — like withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement — that could provoke retaliation and roil the American economy.

For months, the Chinese cultivated Mr. Mnuchin as part of a concerted effort to establish him as the primary American interlocutor. And to the dismay of some of his colleagues, he embraced that role — most visibly when Mr. Trump sent his own trade delegation to Beijing early this month.

During that trip, Mr. Mnuchin agreed to a private meeting with China’s top economic official, Liu He, without Mr. Navarro or any other members of the American delegation. He and Mr. Navarro stepped outside to engage in a profanity-laced shouting match, an unmistakable demonstration to the Chinese of their deep differences of opinions. Mr. Mnuchin sought to play down tensions between the American officials, saying on CNBC that Mr. Navarro was “an important part of the team.”

Last week, the Chinese came to the United States prepared to deal, both by making numerical commitments to buy American goods and by promising structural changes to their economy. Over a period of years, that combination could equal $200 billion in additional trade — a figure echoing Mr. Trump’s target of reducing the trade deficit by $200 billion.

But the Chinese were not willing to make an outright commitment to reduce the trade deficit by a specific dollar figure, believing that trade balances are the result of broader economic factors, such as currency valuations and economic growth, and such a commitment could set off more conflict with the United States down the road.

It is not clear that the Chinese ever saw the $200 billion figure as realistic or even relevant, people briefed on their plans said. But they realized its symbolic importance for Mr. Trump, and they were making an effort to give him some kind of victory.

In return for concessions, the Chinese were expecting the administration to offer relief to the Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE, which had been crippled by national security sanctions that prevented it from buying any American technology.

The Sunday before the Chinese arrived, Mr. Trump said on Twitter that he might rethink the company’s punishment in return for trade concessions — and as a personal favor to Mr. Xi. But by the time Mr. Liu touched down last week in Washington, the president’s statements had provoked a fierce backlash in Congress, and the politics around ZTE had shifted.

The Chinese also found new resistance to their requests to relax the export controls that prevent them from buying militarily sensitive products. Mr. Mnuchin’s openness to this request set off fierce opposition within the administration, especially among Pentagon officials, who feared the sales could compromise American national security.

On Tuesday, Mr. Mnuchin said at a Senate hearing that the United States would reject any trade deals that included weakening export restrictions on sensitive military technology.

“Export control items are absolutely not on the table for discussions, we would in no way look to loosen that,” Mr. Mnuchin said, explaining that Mr. Trump has asked him to aggressively review deals involving such industries. “I can assure you this president is very focused on, as I’ve said, protecting American technology.”

As the talks with China began, Trump officials put out word — first in private, and then publicly — that the Chinese were prepared to meet the $200 billion target. Their motives differed: Some may have blared the figure in an effort to lock the Chinese into their promises. Others may have leaked it as a warning that the administration was focused on reducing the trade deficit at the expense of other priorities, like overhauling the Chinese economy and ending its pattern of forcing American companies that do business in China to hand over intellectual property.

Whatever the motivation, the leaks ignited a backlash from the Chinese. On Thursday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry denied that it had offered to reduce its trade surplus by $200 billion. On Friday, the state-run People’s Daily labeled the reports “a misunderstanding.”

Also on Friday, Mr. Kudlow told reporters that “the number’s a good number.” But on Sunday, he said, “Maybe I got ahead of the curve.”

Mr. Trump, Mr. Kudlow said, liked the number, “but it’s too soon to lock that in.”

After expecting to wrap up talks on Friday, the two sides argued into the night about the wording of their joint statement, and the talks extended into the next day.

The final product was vaguely worded and lacked numerical commitments or any firm details.

In multiple TV appearances after the announcement, Mr. Mnuchin, Mr. Kudlow and Mr. Ross presented the deal positively in an effort, some trade analysts say, to paper over divisions with the Chinese until after the summit meeting next month with the North Koreans.

Not everyone was so pleased. On Sunday, Mr. Lighthizer released a statement on the talks that many in Washington saw as a not-so-veiled critique of Mr. Mnuchin’s choice to prioritize the trade deficit.

“Real work still needs to be done to achieve changes in a Chinese system that facilitates forced technology transfers in order to do business in China and the theft of our companies’ intellectual property and business know how,” it said.

“Getting China to open its market to more U.S. exports is significant,” Mr. Lighthizer continued, “but the far more important issues revolve around forced technology transfers, cybertheft and the protection of our innovation.”


There’s more to the story
. Nobody knows what’s really happening. But it’s clear that there’s no real plan, not even a coherent philosophy. The master negotiator is just a playground bully with a glass jaw.