Skip to content

Month: February 2022

The Purge Continues

I guess they are short some fresh human sacrifices this week so they need to go back to well for these two:

A proposal to endorse removing GOP Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from the House Republican Conference has gained steam ahead of its introduction at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting this week.The proposed resolution, which has garnered more than 50 co-sponsors, seeks to punish the two Republican lawmakers over their involvement in the ongoing House Select Committee investigation of the January 6 riots at the US Capitol, according to two people familiar with the latest draft. Should it pass out of a resolutions committee meeting on Thursday, all 168 RNC members would vote on it Friday morning.”We want to make a statement. This is an inquisition, and we just feel like they are trying to dig up anything they can but that it’s one-sided,” Jonathan Barnett, a national committeeman from Arkansas who is among the resolution’s co-sponsors, told CNN in an interview Tuesday.

“We don’t understand Liz and Adam. There’s just a lot of frustration with the January 6 committee and we don’t think there’s any representation on the Republican side. We’d like to see [House Minority Leader Kevin] McCarthy take care of these issues, but it’s something we feel we need to talk about,” Barnett added.

Led by Wyoming Republican Party Chairman Frank Eathorne, the resolution has been passed around to several party officials over the past few days who have been eager to take a public stand against the House panel and the two Republicans who have taken on active roles in the January 6 investigation. The Washington Post was first to report details of the resolution, which is likely to be taken up at the committee’s winter meeting in Salt Lake City this week.

This is what they’ll do for fun at their meeting. When they aren’t sharing Ivermectin and urine drinking tips.

Trump’s Super Grift

I think most members of the Trump cult genuinely just worship the guy. I don’t pretend to understand it but I do believe it.

These accomplices, however, are in it for the money:

It’s been a bewildering year for anyone following the soap opera that is Donald Trump’s fundraising groups. The fallout from a sexual assault scandal led to the demise of one PAC and the rise of another in its place, with a confusing march of new names—all a variation on the MAGA theme.

But when it comes to the latest fundraising numbers, fans of this show are in luck: The cast of characters is all too familiar. From Donald Trump Jr.’s fiance to top White House officials to the requisite Trump property tithes, it’s all there, right down to the Jan. 6 organizer now on the monthly MAGA dole.

[…]

The spending side was tried and true Trumpism. Perhaps the most notable presence on the payroll is a Jan. 6 organizer.

Three monthly super PAC payments totaling $16,000 went out to Cassidy Kofoed, the 24-year-old daughter of California entrepreneur Richard Kofoed. ProPublica reported in November that Cassidy’s name appeared on Jan. 6 planning documents, and that she worked on event preparations with Caroline Wren—a major GOP fundraiser and friend of Donald Trump Jr.’s fiance, Kim Guilfoyle. Richard Kofoed had chartered the plane that carried Guilfoyle to D.C. for the Jan. 6 event, according to the report.

Guilfoyle—the former fundraising chair for Trump Victory—also appears to have entered the revolving door as Lewandowski was flung out. The super PAC cut two checks worth a total $140,000 to KGT Global Consulting LLC, a Florida-based entity created in February which corporate filings tie to one Anthony Guilfoyle.

Lewandowski disappears from expenses after the incident—but not before cashing a handsome $83,000 check just a few weeks earlier. But even that paycheck wouldn’t have covered the more than $90,000 in legal fees the PAC paid out in the days after the alleged assault. Other legal fees went out to Elections LLC, a firm co-founded by key Trump 2020 campaign staffer Justin Clark.

Another familiar name was Lewandowski’s replacement at the top: former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi—a MAGAland fixture who also holds a top job at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute dark money group. Bondi pocketed more than $150,000 from the super PAC over the last four months of the year.

Another AFPI staffer appears to be pulling double duty—Trump’s former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, now co-chair of the AFPI Center for Law and Justice, took home $7,880 at the end of December. And another former acting official—director of national intelligence Ric Grennell—got a similar sized MAGAA! paycheck the same day.

But while the payees are familiar, the payment structure is new—and unusual.

The super PAC’s filing reveals that all of the above names, with the exception of Guilfoyle, were getting paid via a previously unreported nonprofit, called Make America Great Again Policies.

The group was created by Lewandowski last June, and it claims to have a “cost-sharing” arrangement with the super PAC. The reason for the layered payment structure is not immediately clear.

And the final throwback—Trump himself got a cut.

Federal law prohibits candidates from coordinating with super PACs, but Trump has no compunctions about pushing that line, going so far as to endorse MAGAA! as the only “official” Trump super PAC. And in Trump style, the super PAC held an event in December at Trump International Golf Club in Palm Beach, shelling out more than $10,000, with an extra $900 going to the Trump National Transportation Service. The December event put a cap on a tumultuous fundraising year that began at Trump’s Bedminster, NJ, club.

The fact that this sort of self-dealing, which Trump has done since he started running in 2015, is now just shrugged off as normal when it comes to Trump (while still clutching pearls over far lesser offenses in others) still shocks.

Trump recognized something very important that nobody else did: if your corruption is right out in the open and your own supporters and allies say nothing about it, you can get a pass because it doesn’t “read” as “wrong” to much of the public.

It’s understandable. Most people assume that anyone in the public eye would have some shame and be afraid of legal repercussions so the fact that he doesn’t must mean there must be some gray area or difference in interpretation in what he’s doing. Or perhaps it’s something everyone does and he’s just “honest” enough not to hide it. Shamelessness is very powerful.

The right wing and its ideological allies

I’m sure you’re heard all about the right’s latest crusade to ban books. They’re really going to town:

[School libraries are] a battleground in an unprecedented effort by parents and conservative politicians in Texas to ban books dealing with race, sexuality and gender from schools, an NBC News investigation has found. Hundreds of titles have been pulled from libraries across the state for review, sometimes over the objections of school librarians, several of whom told NBC News they face increasingly hostile work environments and mounting pressure to pre-emptively pull books that might draw complaints. 

Records requests to nearly 100 school districts in the Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin regions — a small sampling of the state’s 1,250 public school systems — revealed 75 formal requests by parents or community members to ban books from libraries during the first four months of this school year. In comparison, only one library book challenge was filed at those districts during the same time period a year earlier, records show. A handful of the districts reported more challenges this year than in the past two decades combined.

I’m sure you’ve also heard that the right wing is hostile to China and is pushing for confrontation. You have no doubt noticed that they routinely refer to them as the “Chinese Communist Party” nowadays, just as if it was 1952 all over again.

As usual, they have become what they purport to abhor:

As the Chinese government tightened its grip over its ethnic Uyghur population, it sentenced one man to death and three others to life in prison last year for textbooks drawn in part from historical resistance movements that had once been sanctioned by the ruling Communist Party.

The Uyghers are Muslims, so I think it’s fair to say that book banning isn’t the only thing the American right has in common with the “Chinese Communist Party.” Imagine that.

Yes, Supreme Court picks are political

She is, as usual, full of it:

The candidate for president was in difficult straits and so he made a promise that would change history. If elected, he said, he would shatter more than 200 years of precedent and nominate a Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court.

That was Joe Biden, his face pressed to the mat days ahead of the 2020 South Carolina primary. His announcement clinched a key endorsement that reversed Biden’s fortunes and swiftly helped make him the Democratic nominee.

The circumstances were similar in 1980, when Ronald Reagan pledged to name the court’s first female justice.

“It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists,” Reagan said, as he worked to close a gender gap in his run against President Carter and change the subject from a foot-in-mouth comment the Republican made blaming trees for air pollution.

The vow to appoint “the most qualified woman I can possibly find” to the Supreme Court was motivated by one thing alone: political self-interest. “It was not an ideological decision at all,” said Stu Spencer, Reagan’s chief strategist and architect of his campaign pledge. Nor, Spencer said, did the announcement stem from some heartfelt desire by Reagan to remedy a long-standing flaw in the country’s administration of justice. It was, Spencer said, all about “seeking a solution to his deficit problem with women.”

Biden’s intention to fulfill his promise to name a Black female justice, which secured the blessing of South Carolina’s most powerful Democrat, Rep. James E. Clyburn, has caused howls on the right, from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and National Review to the consternation of the reliably reactive Diamond and Silk.

“This can really turn … the Supreme Court upside down,” Lynnette “Diamond” Hardaway said on the Trumpaganda network OAN, because replacing one liberal justice with another liberal justice on the 6-3 conservative court will surely shift its balance. (Huh?)

Much of the grievance toward Biden stems from the notion that some eminently qualified white male may be passed over for the high court because of the race and gender criteria the president has set forth, though white men haven’t exactly been locked out of power in America these last 245 years. For those keeping tabs, four Black women have flown in space, which is four times the number who have sat on the Supreme Court.

There is also professed outrage that such raw political calculation — Biden’s desire to save his skin in South Carolina — would dictate his choice for a court that has approached its work in such transcendently nonpartisan fashion. (This is sarcasm, right?)

Biden “helped politicize the entire nomination process,” Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine tut-tutted on ABC’s “This Week.” As if the three justices placed on the court by President Trump arrived through a kind of miracle birth.

Collins and others seize on the fact that Reagan said one of his first picks would be a woman, suggesting that negates any comparison with the supposedly shameless Biden. The argument, of course, credits a remarkable prescience to Reagan, who evidently peered into the future and knew he would have the opportunity to make more than one selection. (As it turned out, he named four justices in eight years in office.)

It also ignores the raw political nature of Reagan’s pledge.

Spencer, who was with Reagan from the start of his electoral career in the mid-1960s, noted he had fared well among female voters as a candidate for California governor. But that support dwindled by the time Reagan was waging his third bid for president, in part because of his opposition to abortion rights and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.

Critics also noted that Reagan had failed to appoint any women to his Cabinet while serving as governor and all three of his nominees for the state Supreme Court were men. Losing the women’s vote in a landslide,and with it Reagan’s shot at the White House, was a genuine concern among Republicans. One proposed remedy was pledging to put a female justice on the nation’s highest court.

At a meeting with GOP women who backed the Equal Rights Amendment, Massachusetts Rep. Margaret Heckler broached the subject with Reagan, who — Heckler said — appeared receptive. After turning the matter over in his head for months, Spencer brought the matter up at an October breakfast with the candidate. As he recollected the conversation, Spencer asked, “Do you have any problem appointing a woman to the Supreme Court?”

Reagan said, “Hell, no. Not if she’s qualified,” Spencer recalled. And that was that. (While some in Reagan’s political brain trust resisted, Spencer had an important ally in Reagan’s wife, Nancy.)

The question then was how and when to announce Reagan’s groundbreaking intention. Speaking to a group of coal and steel workers in Ohio in early October, the candidate had made an off-the-cuff remark downplaying the problem of air pollution and suggesting that trees were a major contributor. The statement played into Reagan’s gaffe-prone image and reverberated for days after.

The campaign was eager to change the subject and so Reagan announced his plans to name a female justice. The ploy worked. The pledge became a central part of Reagan’s closing argument in the campaign.

After his election, Reagan redeemed the promise by nominating Sandra Day O’Connor, a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, when Justice Potter Stewart retired. It was a bold and transformational move. And it just goes to show that good things can sometimes result from cold political calculation.

And, by the way, O’Connor wasn’t particularly “qualified” by the standards these people usually hold up as qualified and certainly not in the way that the front-runners on Biden’s list are. Barrett is the same. But they were white Republicans and that was all that mattered to the GOP.

Waiting for Hillary

They want it, they want it badly:

There is zero evidence that Clinton has any plans to run again. But the right wing hate for her is still so strong — they joyfully chanted “lock her up” just last Saturday at Trump’s rally — that they need to keep the hope alive for ratings and profit.

Meanwhile, I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn this:

No one knows how to run against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi better than Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio.

In 2010, he made her the central figure in his campaign to win a rematch against Mary Jo Kilroy, the Democratic incumbent who had defeated him by little more than 2,000 votes in 2008.

“Her record mirrors Pelosi’s,” Stivers said back then. “Really, my focus is going to be on Pelosi and Kilroy.”

Oh wait. That was 2018. This is the latest:

The NRCC, running a perennial play, plans to play up Pelosi in ads against vulnerable Dems.

It’s already run several ads featuring the speaker, including those against embattled Reps. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.).

Calvin Moore, a spokesperson for the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund, signaled a similar strategy. “As long as Pelosi is around, she’ll be the gift that keeps on giving for Republican campaigns,” he said.

I don’t see why they can’t keep running against Hillary and Nancy even after they’re dead. Apparently Republicans are terrified of them.

He really wanted to seize those voting machines

Last week we learned that Trump and his accomplices wanted the military to seize the voting machines as Michael Flynn was touting on television but they were talked out of it. Now we learn that Trump then directed that the Department of Homeland Security do it and faced with resistance, that was shelved as well. Apparently, Trump had also requested that Bill Barr order the Justice Department seize the voting machines as well.

I’m not entirely sure what they were going to do with these voting machines but if they followed Flynn’s plan, they thought they were going to “re-run” the election in those states.

Here’s the latest:

Six weeks after Election Day, with his hold on power slipping, President Donald J. Trump directed his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to make a remarkable call. Mr. Trump wanted him to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states, three people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Giuliani did so, calling the department’s acting deputy secretary, who said he lacked the authority to audit or impound the machines.

Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Giuliani to make that inquiry after rejecting a separate effort by his outside advisers to have the Pentagon take control of the machines. And the outreach to the Department of Homeland Security came not long after Mr. Trump, in an Oval Office meeting with Attorney General William P. Barr, raised the possibility of whether the Justice Department could seize the machines, a previously undisclosed suggestion that Mr. Barr immediately shot down.

The new accounts show that Mr. Trump was more directly involved than previously known in exploring proposals to use his national security agencies to seize voting machines as he grasped unsuccessfully for evidence of fraud that would help him reverse his defeat in the 2020 election, according to people familiar with the episodes.

The existence of proposals to use at least three federal departments to assist Mr. Trump’s attempt to stay in power has been publicly known. The proposals involving the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security were codified by advisers in the form of draft executive orders.

But the new accounts provide fresh insight into how the former president considered and to some degree pushed the plans, which would have taken the United States into uncharted territory by using federal authority to seize control of the voting systems run by states on baseless grounds of widespread voting fraud.

The people familiar with the matter were briefed on the events by participants or had firsthand knowledge of them.

The accounts about the voting machines emerged after a weekend when Mr. Trump declared at a rally in Texas that he might pardon people charged in connection with the storming of the Capitol last Jan. 6 if he were re-elected. In a statement issued after the rally, Mr. Trump also suggested that his vice president, Mike Pence, could have personally “overturned the election” by refusing to count delegates to the Electoral College who had vowed to cast their votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The new information helps to flesh out how the draft executive orders to seize voting machines came into existence and points in particular to the key role played by a retired Army colonel named Phil Waldron.

According to people familiar with the accounts, Mr. Waldron, shortly after the election, began telling associates that he had found irregularities in vote results that he felt were suggestive of fraud. He then came up with the idea of having a federal agency like the military or the Department of Homeland Security confiscate the machines to preserve evidence.

Mr. Waldron first proposed the notion of the Pentagon’s involvement to Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, whom he says he served with in the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The plans were among an array of options that were placed before Mr. Trump in the tumultuous days and weeks that followed the election, developed by an ad hoc group of lawyers like Sidney Powell and other allies including Mr. Flynn and Mr. Waldron. That group often found itself at odds with Mr. Giuliani and his longtime associate Bernard Kerik, as well as with Mr. Trump’s White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, and his team.

Around the same time that Mr. Trump brought up the possibility of having the Justice Department seize the voting machines, for example, he also tried to persuade state lawmakers in contested states like Michigan and Pennsylvania to use local law enforcement agencies to take control of them, people familiar with the matter said. The state lawmakers refused to go along with the plan.

The meeting with Mr. Barr took place in mid- to late November when Mr. Trump raised the idea of whether the Justice Department could be used to seize machines, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump told Mr. Barr that his lawyers had told him that the department had the power to seize machines as evidence of fraud.

Mr. Trump mentioned a specific state that had used machines built by Dominion Voting Systems, where his lawyers believed there had been fraud, although it is unclear which state Mr. Trump was referring to. Mr. Barr, who had been briefed extensively at that point by federal law enforcement officials about how the theories being pushed by Mr. Trump’s legal team about the Dominion machines were unfounded, told Mr. Trump that the Justice Department had no basis for seizing the machines because there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.

It was only after several early options were exhausted that Mr. Waldron pitched the idea of using other parts of the federal government to seize the machines to both Mr. Giuliani and members of the Trump legal team, and to Mr. Flynn and his own associates, including Ms. Powell and Patrick Byrne, a wealthy business executive who funded many of the efforts to challenge the election.

WTH???

I don’t know much about this fellow Waldron, but he apparently worked with Flynn at the pentagon and was the person who drafted the Executive Orders for the Pentagon and DHS to seize the voting machines.

I thought this was a very pertinent observation:

I’m fairly sure that both Flynn and Waldron are receiving a military pension as well.

Government is not the only thing Republicans want to drown in their bathtubs

Amanda Litman (Run For Something) begins her conversation with Ezra Klein by explaining what most people do not understand about how elections run in this country. In addition to federal races, there are over 3,000 counties in the country and thousands more municipalities with their own election rules and overlapping/intersecting schedules and rules. So many hands on the controls makes it hard to rig elections.

Klein shoots back that the miasma of systems makes it easier to throw everything into confusion.

Run For Something recruits candidates to run for office. Somebody has to, she shrugs:

County and state parties used to do candidate recruitment. They no longer have the capacity to do it. They don’t have the money, they don’t have the staff, they don’t have the time. So they allocate their resources from a place of scarcity which then gets you to a system where, instead of trying to find the most exciting, engaging or compelling candidate for a position, you are, as one battleground state party told us in 2020 or 2018, flipping through the high school yearbook trying to find the football coach and asking them to run.

Defunding the left is why the right variously attacks trial lawyers, unions, and other groups that provide funding to Democrats. It is why North Carolina Republicans removed the party funding check-off box from state tax forms. Government is not the only thing Republicans want to drown in their bathtubs.

Litman continues:

I think the people who are willing to go from mad or inspired to taking action are the ones that can clearly articulate and answer to three questions. Why do I want to run; what is the problem I care about solving? How is the office I want to run for going to give me space to solve it? And why should voters want me to win? … And when you can answer those three questions, everything else about campaigns, especially local ones, are just logistics.

What Litman is doing is valuable. She’s right, there is little local support out there and few resources for aspiring candidates. What there are are not in plain sight. She wants to eliminate party “gatekeepers” whose specialized knowledge keeps the process of assembling a campaign opaque to novices.

But “just logistics”? Another reason it is so difficult to recruit local candidates is that there is little or no party structure extant in many, many places across the country. No local party infrastructure with the capacity to encourage them, support them, train them, and to get out the vote for them. No logistical support. No veteran volunteers reminding voters not to stop voting their ballots before they get to city council or school board races.

At a 2018 Maryland conference for aspiring down-ballot candidates, I asked what help they could expect in the general election from their local Democratic committees:

The question generally drew a pregnant pause, a sigh, and perhaps an eye roll.

One blue-state congressional race staffer described his state organization as “a hot mess,” and county organizations in the district had little more to offer his candidate. A state House candidate from the Midwest explained that members of the local county committee were typically over 70 years old. The local county chair had held that position for 25 years. Attendees from Indiana to New York told similar stories.

This means that while Litman’s group can help recruit candidates and train them in the dark art of assembling their campaigns for office, local candidates are often reinventing those wheels for themselves. If there was local logistical support for their campaigns, they wouldn’t have to. Not alone, anyway.

Still working on that problem here. The 4th edition goes out this week, so stay tuned before requesting.

Is this really what Americans want?

“In Hungary one quarter of the respondents believe that democracy and political violence are compatible, one fifth believe that in some cases ‘the end justifies the means’, and twelve per cent believe that under certain circumstances, terrorism is acceptable.” from Budapest Beacon.

Every other new activist in Democratic politics wants to be assigned to messaging. Democrats suck at it and they believe they can do better. They are going to write the white paper that will rescue Democrats from themselves and somehow get national-level politicians who have never heard of them to take their amateur advice. Even the pros have trouble getting Democrats to listen. Getting them all on the same page is even more of a challenge.

Belief that the right message can cure Democrats’ popularity dips is widespread among people who do politics largely in their heads. Not long ago, messaging trainings based on the hero’s journey were in vogue. We are always looking for shortcuts for replicating the messaging monster the right built for itself over decades. And for short-circuiting nationalism.

Pod Save America‘s, Dan Pfeiffer spoke with Vox’s Sean Illing about why good messaging won’t save them. People are covid-weary. Normal seems elusive. We underestimated the political impact of inflation (remember the toll it took on Jimmy Carter?). The media would rather focus in Democratic infighting than on explosive economic growth.

Democrats are behind the curve if they think mainstream nedia is going to carry a mesasage for them (on the cheap), says Pfeiffer. They still believe good policy (and truth), “popular stuff,” speaks for itself. They believe that what they support helps the working class is self-evident, that they don’t need to invest in advertising it. “I mean, Biden mailed money to people and his approval rating didn’t move,” Pfeiffer says.

Republicans have no policy. They campaign on race and identity.

Pfeiffer in several places makes the common mistake of identifying the messaging colossus as a Republican Party effort rather than a project of the allied-right:

Sean Illing

Given everything we’ve said, do you think Democrats can message their way out of this problem?

Dan Pfeiffer

You can win an election in this environment. Like I said, we’ve done it before, we can do it again. But we need everything to go our way. In the long run or even in the medium term, the only real answer here is to build up a progressive media and a messaging operation that can compete with the right-wing one.

People have been screaming about this for a long time. It has to happen. There have been some good recent efforts. I’m proud to be a part of what Crooked Media has been doing for the last few years. But there is still not a commitment from the top of the party, or the party’s donor base, to solving this problem.

Sean Illing

Help me understand how that’s possible. You’re in this world, you’re having conversations with donors and party leaders. How is this message not getting through? How do they not see the need for action on this front?

Dan Pfeiffer

There are a couple issues. One is generational. There’s a younger set of Democrats who are much savvier about this and more focused on it. This is the consequence of having a party leadership that is much older. You have people who started their careers in the golden age of television, decades before the internet was invented, and it’s not easy to get them to adjust to a new model.

The other thing is, I think we’ve spent too much time demonizing Fox News for its propaganda. There’s this visceral reaction from a lot of people in our donor community. They don’t want to be labeled propagandists in that way. Which is why you see Democratic billionaires buying the Atlantic and Time magazine and not trying to build a non-racist, more honest, better version of Breitbart, or a Democratic Fox News, or whatever that would look like.

Some of that is because Democratic progressive talk radio in the early part of the century, with Air America, didn’t really work. For a certain set of donors, that was a formative experience. The key difference is that Republican donors view their media operations more as political investments than as profit engines. Pick a digital right-wing outlet that started in the last 10 years and there’s a Republican billionaire behind it.

They are willing to lose money for years before those investments pay off.

But the “younger set” is so enamored of the latest tech that they focus on data rather than on people. Each election there is a new technological advance activists believe will give them an edge rather than putting enough energy and funding behind retail politics and lasting infrastructure that has time to grow and mature. Republican billionaires invest for the long term and don’t mind remaining in the shadows. Progressive ones want flash and accolades now.

Pfeiffer cautions Democrats not to take the wrong message from their loss in the Virginia governor’s race. The Gavin Newsom recall election in California might hold a better lesson:

What I took from that is that we shouldn’t call whatever candidate they put forward another Trump, but we should frame the Republicans as Trumpists. We should say that they are part of this dangerous movement that brought this coalition together to take the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Seriously. But it’s more than that. The Republican Party under Trumpism looks to turn the United States into something antithetical to Americans’ prized sense of themselves. Two short decades ago, the George W. Bush adminstration told itself and the world the goal of it’s military adventurism was to seed democracy in the Middle East, to make the region more like us. Everybody wants to be more like us, we tell ourselves.

Or we did. Trump wants to turn the supposed beacon of liberty into Hungary, Turkey, Brazil or Russia. He wants to make us more like them.

Is that really what Americans want? Message that.