I don’t think Trump will be celebrating suckers and losers day this way over the next four years. What’s in it for him?
"what digby sez..."
Digby's Hullabaloo Posts
He’s also a very sensitive guy:
Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club has been brimming in the last 48 hours with two kinds of people: those angling for a job in the president-elect’s incoming administration, and those trying to influence him into hiring their picks for the top spots.
But the one person who has loomed over it all and has exerted a great deal of influence is Elon Musk, according to multiple sources. The tech billionaire has been seen at the resort in Palm Beach, Florida, almost every day since Trump won the election last week, dining with him on the patio some evenings and hanging out with his family Sunday at the golf course.
Musk has been in the room when multiple world leaders have phoned Trump, and he’s weighed in on staffing decisions, with the SpaceX and Tesla CEO even making clear his preference for certain roles.
In one instance, Musk was with Trump at Mar-a-Lago when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called to congratulate the president-elect the day after the election, according to a source briefed on the call. Trump put the call on speaker, and Zelensky thanked Musk for his help providing communications to Ukraine through the billionaire’s Starlink internet service.
On Sunday, Musk waded into the GOP Senate leadership fight, endorsing Sen. Rick Scott after the Florida Republican swiftly backed Trump’s demand that anyone vying to be leader support recess appointments for his nominees — a way for presidents to attempt to bypass Congress that Senate Democrats could essentially block.
Musk is not only close to Trump but also with his transition co-chair, Howard Lutnick — the billionaire CEO of financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald who is leading the personnel side of the transition.
Sources have described Trump as enamored with Musk.
“We have to protect our geniuses, we don’t have that many of them,” the president-elect said during his victory speech early Wednesday morning.
While Musk himself is not formally expected to take a position in Trump’s administration, he doesn’t really need to, one source said, noting the X owner is having just as much influence from the outside.
While Trump and Musk had publicly pitched the latter leading an efficiency commission to slash spending inside the federal government, CNN reported Thursday that a source familiar with the conversations around Musk said it seemed unlikely he would even want a full-time government position, given what that would mean for his role in the companies he helms.
Instead, it seemed more plausible that Musk would be appointed to a blue-ribbon committee, where he would still have enormous access but would not be subject to government ethics rules, which would require him to divest or put assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest.
Tesla’s shares have risen 15%, bringing it to a two year high. He made at least 15 billion on the day after the election. It’s win-win.
The New York Review of Books offered a Q&A with this person:
In Joseph O’Neill’s first essay in our pages, he warned readers that “the Republican Party enjoyed a mystifying presumption of legitimacy,” contrasted with “the curious timidity of Democrats.” In that instance, he was describing the 2000 presidential election fiasco in Florida, but he has made clear in his subsequent writing to what extent that dynamic has dogged American politics ever since: from an article about Democrats’ failure to win statewide elections—“Their core mission is to practice a ceremonial innocence about the unshakable virtue of American conservatism—and to do so even as the worst, full of passionate intensity, are cleaning their clocks”—to his analysis of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s campaign. “What will they do?” he asked in October. “Stick with the cautious, timid posture we saw at the veep debate, or go on the offensive? It seems extraordinary that this is a question at all.”
There’s a lot to it and I don’t agree with all of it. Some of what he says seems contradictory to me. But that said, in contrast to 90% of the ritualized Democratic self-flaggelation pieces in which everyone miraculously discovers that their personal hobby horses are the One True Reason why the party failed, this one struck me as a realistic take on the whole thing without the hysterical navel gazing:
I don’t think Harris lost because of campaign missteps. To put it another way: it’s hard to think of a campaign she could have run that would have overcome the negative ideological environment in which the election took place. We don’t yet fully understand that environment. We do know that the disastrously misguided political operations of the Democratic Party over the last four years contributed significantly to the problem. Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Garland, et al. utterly failed to grasp the threat posed by Donald Trump’s Republican Party, including its Supreme Court branch. They sentimentally overestimated the attachment of American whites to the liberal order. They failed to take seriously that vast numbers of Americans inhabit far-right information communities. They undervalued the importance of showing cultural solidarity with working-class voters. And so on and so forth. A lot went wrong, politically. The richest, most militarily secure democracy in the world doesn’t embrace authoritarianism unless lots of mistakes have been made.
The current prevailing theory about Trump’s victory is that most Americans, irked by an unpleasant encounter with inflation, cast an anti-incumbent vote without giving much thought to the consequences of that vote for US democracy. I don’t totally buy this whoops! theory. My sense is that, in this era of the Internet, there are millions more fascists in this country than people think, young men in particular. And I believe that many more millions are fascinated by Trump not for his supposed business prowess but for his transparent wish to hurt others. He is an evil guy, a villain—and many Americans are excited by it. Harris and the Democrats, by contrast, are boring, boring, boring. In this sense, the election was like a choice between four more years of church or four years of violent entertainment. Nihilistic consumerism, as much as authoritarianism, prevailed. Of course, political science is not designed to investigate this kind of stuff. The clearest insights we have come from the realm of philosophy and literature. Hannah Arendt and Primo Levi did not rely on focus groups.
The magnitude of Harris’s loss also makes me wonder about alternatives outside of party politics. If the Democratic party ends up tacking right or otherwise appeasing Trump on, say, some of his more draconian immigration policies in order to stave off cuts to social security, do you have a sense of how people might organize against both parties? Historically, how have voters been able to advance policies that both the ruling and opposition parties are against?
Harris lost, yes—but let’s not overegg the pudding. Trump’s margin of victory was humdrum. His final vote tally will fall millions short of the votes won by Biden in 2020. The opposition to him is huge and intense and in the right. So let’s be clear: this malicious criminal does not have the barbaric mandate he claims for himself. On the contrary, it is the opposition that has a mandate, derived from centuries of democratic tradition.
If one thing will guarantee excess years of dictatorship, it would be fracturing the antifascist opposition into squabbling factions. Republicans and their allies in social media will do everything they can to divide the left. The responsibility is on all of us, and the Democratic Party in particular, to ensure that this doesn’t happen. In practice this will mean listening and deferring to the concerns and values of the base, whose grassroots efforts prevented the Democrats from suffering a collapse in the Senate and House.
What do you think the first hundred days of Trump’s term will look like? Are there any specific policies or obsessions that you think will occupy him?
I think we can expect an attempt to round up, incarcerate, and deport tens of thousands of suspected undocumented immigrants. We can expect a flurry of executive orders designed to transform and weaponize the Department of Justice. We can expect business leaders to gather in the Oval Office to pay homage to the president. We can expect Elon Musk to be horribly prominent, possibly as an enforcer of Trump’s promises to impose tariffs on imported goods. I’m going to assume that the Democratic Party, as we speak, is preparing for these and other eventualities. I am sure Trump will overreach. It is up to the opposition to make him pay for his overreaches. It is not our job to help him “succeed.” It’s not our job to “unite the country” or, as President Biden has suggested, “turn down the temperature.” It’s our job to make Trump fail, fail again, fail worse.
I sure hope the Democrats can get through this period of penance and self-mortification quickly because Trump is moving fast. He just named Stephen Miller as his Deputy Chief of Staff for policy and Tom “we’ll deport US citizens” Homan as his “immigration czar.” Elise Stefanik to the UN. Amnd he’s issued an edict that the Senate must pass all of his cabinet choices as recess appointments, circumventing the constitutional requirement for advise and consent. And that’s with a 53 vote majority. (How bad must these choices be?)
I’m not sure what the Democrats will be able to do to slow down this Project 2025 wet dream but they’d better get through their soul searching quickly and recognize their responsibilities as the opposition. There’s a lot to do.
“Who Goes Nazi?”
The Niemöller Countdown has started. The Krassenstein Brothers spell it out:
BREAKING: Trump will appoint Tom Homan, a Project 2025 architect, as his Border Czar.
But don’t worry—he says he won’t separate families; instead, he plans to deport them together. Does this include U.S.-born children of immigrants? Those born in the U.S., who have never even been to countries like El Salvador, will now have to be “deported” there if they want to see their parents again.
View on Threads
It’s now oh-so familiar. Donald Trump’s xenophobic litany dates from his golden escalator ride in 2015. The mad king doesn’t know the difference between seeking asylum and being committed to one (in Venezuela). So Trump’s incoming administration is poised to purge the country of immigrants. Heads up. They won’t stop there.
Journalist Dorothy Thompon knew what she was witnessing as early as 1931. Greg Olear writes about it at his Substack:
No American was more vociferously opposed to fascism than the foreign correspondent turned columnist and radio broadcaster Dorothy Thompson. She was the original head of Antifa—the O.G. “Auntie Fa.”
From her press-box seat in Berlin, she watched as Adolf Hitler consolidated power in Germany. When, after years of futile trying, she was finally able to pin down the leader of the burgeoning Nazi Party for an interview in 1931, the article she wrote about the experience for Cosmopolitan, and the expansion of that article that became her 1932 book I Saw Hitler!, so thoroughly humiliated her subject that Hitler personally ordered her expelled from the country—the 1930s equivalent of being blocked on Twitter by Donald Trump. Talk about a badge of honor!
Thompson got under the future mass murderer’s skin:
Olear reaches back for a Thompson article worthy of resurrection as a cautionary tale. To this day, it’s not clear if it is analysis or satire:
In August 1941—almost two full years after Hitler invaded Poland but four months before Pearl Harbor compelled the United States to enter the war—Thompson published a famous piece in Harper’s Magazine called “Who Goes Nazi?” It’s been making the social-media rounds again this week, for obvious reasons.
Here it is:
Who Goes Nazi?
It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.
It is preposterous to think that they are divided by any racial characteristics. Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. I know lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance. There are Jews who have repudiated their own ancestors in order to become “Honorary Aryans and Nazis”; there are full-blooded Jews who have enthusiastically entered Hitler’s secret service. Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.
It is also, to an immense extent, the disease of a generation—the generation which was either young or unborn at the end of the last war. This is as true of Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Americans as of Germans. It is the disease of the so-called “lost generation.”
Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.
At any rate, let us look round the room.
The gentleman standing beside the fireplace with an almost untouched glass of whiskey beside him on the mantelpiece is Mr. A, a descendant of one of the great American families. There has never been an American Blue Book without several persons of his surname in it. He is poor and earns his living as an editor. He has had a classical education, has a sound and cultivated taste in literature, painting, and music; has not a touch of snobbery in him; is full of humor, courtesy, and wit. He was a lieutenant in the World War, is a Republican in politics, but voted twice for Roosevelt, last time for Willkie. He is modest, not particularly brilliant, a staunch friend, and a man who greatly enjoys the company of pretty and witty women. His wife, whom he adored, is dead, and he will never remarry.
He has never attracted any attention because of outstanding bravery. But I will put my hand in the fire that nothing on earth could ever make him a Nazi. He would greatly dislike fighting them, but they could never convert him. . . . Why not?
Beside him stands Mr. B, a man of his own class, graduate of the same preparatory school and university, rich, a sportsman, owner of a famous racing stable, vice-president of a bank, married to a well-known society belle. He is a good fellow and extremely popular. But if America were going Nazi he would certainly join up, and early. Why? . . . Why the one and not the other?
Mr. A has a life that is established according to a certain form of personal behavior. Although he has no money, his unostentatious distinction and education have always assured him a position. He has never been engaged in sharp competition. He is a free man. I doubt whether ever in his life he has done anything he did not want to do or anything that was against his code. Nazism wouldn’t fit in with his standards and he has never become accustomed to making concessions.
Mr. B has risen beyond his real abilities by virtue of health, good looks, and being a good mixer. He married for money and he has done lots of other things for money. His code is not his own; it is that of his class—no worse, no better, He fits easily into whatever pattern is successful. That is his sole measure of value—success. Nazism as a minority movement would not attract him. As a movement likely to attain power, it would.
The saturnine man over there talking with a lovely French emigree is already a Nazi. Mr. C is a brilliant and embittered intellectual. He was a poor white-trash Southern boy, a scholarship student at two universities where he took all the scholastic honors but was never invited to join a fraternity. His brilliant gifts won for him successively government positions, partnership in a prominent law firm, and eventually a highly paid job as a Wall Street adviser. He has always moved among important people and always been socially on the periphery. His colleagues have admired his brains and exploited them, but they have seldom invited him—or his wife—to dinner.
He is a snob, loathing his own snobbery. He despises the men about him—he despises, for instance, Mr. B—because he knows that what he has had to achieve by relentless work men like B have won by knowing the right people. But his contempt is inextricably mingled with envy. Even more than he hates the class into which he has insecurely risen, does he hate the people from whom he came. He hates his mother and his father for being his parents. He loathes everything that reminds him of his origins and his humiliations. He is bitterly anti-Semitic because the social insecurity of the Jews reminds him of his own psychological insecurity.
Pity he has utterly erased from his nature, and joy he has never known. He has an ambition, bitter and burning. It is to rise to such an eminence that no one can ever again humiliate him. Not to rule but to be the secret ruler, pulling the strings of puppets created by his brains. Already some of them are talking his language—though they have never met him.
There he sits: he talks awkwardly rather than glibly; he is courteous. He commands a distant and cold respect. But he is a very dangerous man. Were he primitive and brutal he would be a criminal—a murderer. But he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless. But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism. He would laugh to see heads roll.
I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines. He has been ruthless toward two wives and his mother pays the alimony. His life is spent in sensation-seeking and theatricality. He is utterly inconsiderate of everybody. He is very good-looking, in a vacuous, cavalier way, and inordinately vain. He would certainly fancy himself in a uniform that gave him a chance to swagger and lord it over others.
Mrs. E would go Nazi as sure as you are born. That statement surprises you? Mrs. E seems so sweet, so clinging, so cowed. She is. She is a masochist. She is married to a man who never ceases to humiliate her, to lord it over her, to treat her with less consideration than he does his dogs. He is a prominent scientist, and Mrs. E, who married him very young, has persuaded herself that he is a genius, and that there is something of superior womanliness in her utter lack of pride, in her doglike devotion. She speaks disapprovingly of other “masculine” or insufficiently devoted wives. Her husband, however, is bored to death with her. He neglects her completely and she is looking for someone else before whom to pour her ecstatic self-abasement. She will titillate with pleased excitement to the first popular hero who proclaims the basic subordination of women.
On the other hand, Mrs. F would never go Nazi. She is the most popular woman in the room, handsome, gay, witty, and full of the warmest emotion. She was a popular actress ten years ago; married very happily; promptly had four children in a row; has a charming house, is not rich but has no money cares, has never cut herself off from her own happy-go-lucky profession, and is full of sound health and sound common sense. All men try to make love to her; she laughs at them all, and her husband is amused. She has stood on her own feet since she was a child, she has enormously helped her husband’s career (he is a lawyer), she would ornament any drawing-room in any capital, and she is as American as ice cream and cake.
II
How about the butler who is passing the drinks? I look at James with amused eyes. James is safe. James has been butler to the ‘ighest aristocracy, considers all Nazis parvenus and communists, and has a very good sense for “people of quality.” He serves the quiet editor with that friendly air of equality which good servants always show toward those they consider good enough to serve, and he serves the horsy gent stiffly and coldly.
Bill, the grandson of the chauffeur, is helping serve to-night. He is a product of a Bronx public school and high school, and works at night like this to help himself through City College, where he is studying engineering. He is a “proletarian,” though you’d never guess it if you saw him without that white coat. He plays a crack game of tennis—has been a tennis tutor in summer resorts—swims superbly, gets straight A’s in his classes, and thinks America is okay and don’t let anybody say it isn’t. He had a brief period of Youth Congress communism, but it was like the measles. He was not taken in the draft because his eyes are not good enough, but he wants to design airplanes, “like Sikorsky.” He thinks Lindbergh is “just another pilot with a build-up and a rich wife” and that he is “always talking down America, like how we couldn’t lick Hitler if we wanted to.” At this point Bill snorts.
Mr. G is a very intellectual young man who was an infant prodigy. He has been concerned with general ideas since the age of ten and has one of those minds that can scintillatingly rationalize everything. I have known him for ten years and in that time have heard him enthusiastically explain Marx, social credit, technocracy, Keynesian economics, Chestertonian distributism, and everything else one can imagine. Mr. G will never be a Nazi, because he will never be anything. His brain operates quite apart from the rest of his apparatus. He will certainly be able, however, fully to explain and apologize for Nazism if it ever comes along. But Mr. G is always a “deviationist.” When he played with communism he was a Trotskyist; when he talked of Keynes it was to suggest improvement; Chesterton’s economic ideas were all right but he was too bound to Catholic philosophy. So we may be sure that Mr. G would be a Nazi with purse-lipped qualifications. He would certainly be purged.
H is an historian and biographer. He is American of Dutch ancestry born and reared in the Middle West. He has been in love with America all his life. He can recite whole chapters of Thoreau and volumes of American poetry, from Emerson to Steve Benet. He knows Jefferson’s letters, Hamilton’s papers, Lincoln’s speeches. He is a collector of early American furniture, lives in New England, runs a farm for a hobby and doesn’t lose much money on it, and loathes parties like this one. He has a ribald and manly sense of humor, is unconventional and lost a college professorship because of a love affair. Afterward he married the lady and has lived happily ever afterward as the wages of sin.
H has never doubted his own authentic Americanism for one instant. This is his country, and he knows it from Acadia to Zenith. His ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War and in all the wars since. He is certainly an intellectual, but an intellectual smelling slightly of cow barns and damp tweeds. He is the most good-natured and genial man alive, but if anyone ever tries to make this country over into an imitation of Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, or Petain’s systems H will grab a gun and fight. Though H’s liberalism will not permit him to say it, it is his secret conviction that nobody whose ancestors have not been in this country since before the Civil War really understands America or would really fight for it against Nazism or any other foreign ism in a showdown.
But H is wrong. There is one other person in the room who would fight alongside H and he is not even an American citizen. He is a young German emigre, whom I brought along to the party. The people in the room look at him rather askance because he is so Germanic, so very blond-haired, so very blue-eyed, so tanned that somehow you expect him to be wearing shorts. He looks like the model of a Nazi. His English is flawed—he learned it only five years ago. He comes from an old East Prussian family; he was a member of the post-war Youth Movement and afterward of the Republican “Reichsbanner.” All his German friends went Nazi—without exception. He hiked to Switzerland penniless, there pursued his studies in New Testament Greek, sat under the great Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, came to America through the assistance of an American friend whom he had met in a university, got a job teaching the classics in a fashionable private school; quit, and is working now in an airplane factory—working on the night shift to make planes to send to Britain to defeat Germany. He has devoured volumes of American history, knows Whitman by heart, wonders why so few Americans have ever really read the Federalist papers, believes in the United States of Europe, the Union of the English-speaking world, and the coming democratic revolution all over the earth. He believes that America is the country of Creative Evolution once it shakes off its middle-class complacency, its bureaucratized industry, its tentacle-like and spreading government, and sets itself innerly free.
The people in the room think he is not an American, but he is more American than almost any of them. He has discovered America and his spirit is the spirit of the pioneers. He is furious with America because it does not realize its strength and beauty and power. He talks about the workmen in the factory where he is employed. . . . He took the job “in order to understand the real America.” He thinks the men are wonderful. “Why don’t you American intellectuals ever get to them; talk to them?”
I grin bitterly to myself, thinking that if we ever got into war with the Nazis he would probably be interned, while Mr. B and Mr. G and Mrs. E would be spreading defeatism at all such parties as this one. “Of course I don’t like Hitler but . . .”
Mr. J over there is a Jew. Mr. J is a very important man. He is immensely rich—he has made a fortune through a dozen directorates in various companies, through a fabulous marriage, through a speculative flair, and through a native gift for money and a native love of power. He is intelligent and arrogant. He seldom associates with Jews. He deplores any mention of the “Jewish question.” He believes that Hitler “should not be judged from the standpoint of anti-Semitism.” He thinks that “the Jews should be reserved on all political questions.” He considers Roosevelt “an enemy of business.” He thinks “It was a serious blow to the Jews that Frankfurter should have been appointed to the Supreme Court.”
The saturnine Mr. C—the real Nazi in the room—engages him in a flatteringly attentive conversation. Mr. J agrees with Mr. C wholly. Mr. J is definitely attracted by Mr. C. He goes out of his way to ask his name—they have never met before. “A very intelligent man.”
Mr. K contemplates the scene with a sad humor in his expressive eyes. Mr. K is also a Jew. Mr. K is a Jew from the South. He speaks with a Southern drawl. He tells inimitable stories. Ten years ago he owned a very successful business that he had built up from scratch. He sold it for a handsome price, settled his indigent relatives in business, and now enjoys an income for himself of about fifty dollars a week. At forty he began to write articles about odd and out-of-the-way places in American life. A bachelor, and a sad man who makes everybody laugh, he travels continually, knows America from a thousand different facets, and loves it in a quiet, deep, unostentatious way. He is a great friend of H, the biographer. Like H, his ancestors have been in this country since long before the Civil War. He is attracted to the young German. By and by they are together in the drawing-room. The impeccable gentleman of New England, the country-man—intellectual of the Middle West, the happy woman whom the gods love, the young German, the quiet, poised Jew from the South. And over on the other side are the others.
Mr. L has just come in. Mr. L is a lion these days. My hostess was all of a dither when she told me on the telephone, “ . . . and L is coming. You know it’s dreadfully hard to get him.” L is a very powerful labor leader. “My dear, he is a man of the people, but really fascinating.“ L is a man of the people and just exactly as fascinating as my horsy, bank vice-president, on-the-make acquaintance over there, and for the same reasons and in the same way. L makes speeches about the “third of the nation,” and L has made a darned good thing for himself out of championing the oppressed. He has the best car of anyone in this room; salary means nothing to him because he lives on an expense account. He agrees with the very largest and most powerful industrialists in the country that it is the business of the strong to boss the weak, and he has made collective bargaining into a legal compulsion to appoint him or his henchmen as “labor’s” agents, with the power to tax pay envelopes and do what they please with the money. L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in this room. Mr. B regards him with contempt tempered by hatred. Mr. B will use him. L is already parroting B’s speeches. He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power. In private conversation he denounces the Jews as “parasites.” No one has ever asked him what are the creative functions of a highly paid agent, who takes a percentage off the labor of millions of men, and distributes it where and as it may add to his own political power.
III
It’s fun—a macabre sort of fun—this parlor game of “Who Goes Nazi?” And it simplifies things—asking the question in regard to specific personalities.
Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes—you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.
Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.
Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi. It’s an amusing game. Try it at the next big party you go to.
Best you don’t wait to speak out until they get to the Jews. 10… 9… 8….
Who’s your daddy?
President-elect Donald Trump spoke with his mentor:
During the call, which Trump took from his resort in Florida, he advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe, said a person familiar with the call, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
The two men discussed the goal of peace on the European continent and Trump expressed an interest in follow-up conversations to discuss “the resolution of Ukraine’s war soon,” one of the people said.
Unlike Trump, Vladimir Putin is in control of himself. He waited to end the call before laughing out loud.
Trump kids himself that he’s the world’s greatest dealmaker. What sort of deal might he accept for Putin’s ending his aggression in Ukraine? Half the country? The U.S. exiting NATO? Hardly, Trump’s on the verge of doing the second on his own. He understands how the NATO alliance works the way he understands tariffs.
Putin’s got Trump’s number. He had it in Helsinki. A Kremlin spokeman told Russian state TV channel Rossiya:
“Trump talked during his campaign about how he sees everything through deals, that he can make a deal that will lead everyone to peace. At least he talks about peace, not about confrontation and the desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” Peskov said.
“A very unsubtle reminder to Trump about who the real daddy is,” tweeted former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance in response to display of Melania Trump’s modeling photos on Russian state TV.
Trump has spent decades whining that “they” are laughing at “us.” It gnaws at him. How’s that working?
Trump’s skills and talents go unrecognized when we see him as a conventional candidate—a person who seeks to explain policies that might improve lives, or who works to create the appearance of empathy. Yet this is our shortcoming more than his. Trump has always been a presence, not an absence: the presence of fascism. What does this mean?
When the Soviets called their enemies “fascists,” they turned the word into a meaningless insult. Putinist Russia has preserved the habit: a “fascist” is anyone who opposes the wishes of a Russian dictator. So Ukrainians defending their country from Russian invaders are “fascists.” This is a trick that Trump has copied. He, like Vladimir Putin, refers to his enemies as “fascists,” with no ideological significance at all. It is simply a term of opprobrium.
Putin and Trump are both, in fact, fascists. And their use of the word, though meant to confuse, reminds us of one of fascism’s essential characteristics. A fascist is unconcerned with the connection between words and meanings. He does not serve the language; the language serves him. When a fascist calls a liberal a “fascist,” the term begins to work in a different way, as the servant of a particular person, rather than as a bearer of meaning.
[…]
Fascism is now in the algorithms, the neural pathways, the social interactions. How did we fail to see all this? Part of it was our belief that history is over, that the great rivals to liberalism were dead or exhausted. Part of it was American exceptionalism: “it can’t happen here” and so on. But most of it was simple self-absorption: we wanted to see Trump in terms of his absences, so that our way of seeing the world would go unchallenged. So we failed to see his fascist presence. And, because we ignored the fascism, we were unable to make the easy predictions of what he would do next. Or, worse, we learned to thrill at our own mistakes, because he always did something more outrageous than we expected.
It was predictable that Trump would deny the results of the 2020 election. It was predictable that his Big Lie would change American politics. It is predictable, today, that he will give free rein to the oligarchs who, he knows, will continue to generate the social and digital bases of a politics of us and them. It is predictable that, in returning to power, he will seek to change the system so that he can remain in power until death. It is predictable that he will use deportations to divide us, to accustom us to violence, and to make accomplices of us. It is predictable that he will create a cult out of the martyrs of January 6th. It is predictable that he will coöperate with similarly minded rulers abroad.
When the historian Robert Paxton was asked about Trump and fascism a few weeks ago, he made an important point. Of course, Trump is a fascist, Paxton concluded. It was fine to compare him to Mussolini and Hitler, but there was a larger point. It took some luck for those two to come to power. “The Trump phenomenon looks like it has a much more solid social base,” Paxton said, “which neither Hitler nor Mussolini would have had.”
Fascism is a phenomenon, not a person. Just as Trump was always a presence, so is the movement he has created. It is not just a matter of the actual fascists in his movement, who are scarcely hiding, nor of his own friendly references to Hitler or his use of Hitlerian language (“vermin,” “enemy within”). He bears responsibility for what comes next, as do his allies and supporters.
Yet some, and probably more, of the blame rests with our actions and analysis. Again and again, our major institutions, from the media to the judiciary, have amplified Trump’s presence; again and again, we have failed to name the consequences. Fascism can be defeated, but not when we are on its side. ♦
I wish I could share the whole thing with you but it’s the New Yorker and they don’t do gift links. I recomment you read the whole thing if you can. It’s bracing, to say the least.
Here’s his segment on MSNBC:
Trump has a real rapport with these guys. For obvious reasons:
The Taliban has congratulated Donald Trump on winning the presidential race, saying they hoped it marked a “new chapter” in relations with the United States.
The Afghan government, which has not been recognised by any state since they swept to power off the back of an offensive surge in the months and weeks leading up to the US withdrawal, appeared buoyed by the election result, which has seen Trump take 294 electoral college votes so far.
On X, foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Qahar Balkhi expressed hope that a future Trump administration “will take realistic steps toward concrete progress in relations between the two countries and both nations will be able to open a new chapter of relations”.
He underscored that during former president Trump’s first term in power he presided over a peace deal with the Taliban that paved the way for the US withdrawal in 2021 “after which the 20-year occupation ended”.
[…]
The Taliban has not been recognised by any state due to the restrictions it has imposed on women, including access to education and many jobs, which the United Nations has called “gender apartheid”.
Inamullah Samangani, head of the information and culture department in the historical Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, also posted on X: “Americans are not ready to hand over the leadership of their great country to a woman.”
You can’t blame them for reaching that conclusion, especially when the man who won is an adjudicated sexual assaulter and open misogynist. They are peas in a pod.
He’s powerful but he’s not the superhero juggernaut they say he is:
Trump cannot claim is a landslide victory, although that’s how he will describe it.
As of Saturday, Trump is winning the popular vote with a little more than 74 million votes, although millions of votes have yet to be counted in California, Washington and Utah, among others. The final 2024 popular vote tally likely won’t be known until December.
When he lost convincingly in 2020, Trump got a little more than 74 million votes. So while it’s true that much of the country moved to the right in this election, it’s also true that there was some voter apathy if, at the end of the day, turnout is down from 2020.
[…]
In terms of the Electoral College, Trump is on track to win 312 electoral votes if his lead in Arizona holds. It’s a solid win, but in the lower half of US presidential elections.
It would be a better showing than either his or Joe Biden’s 306 electoral votes in 2016 and 2020, respectively. It would also outperform both of George W. Bush’s electoral victories in 2000 and 2004. But it would be far short of Barack Obama’s 365 electoral votes in 2008 and 332 in 2012.
Bill Clinton never reached 50% in the popular vote because both of his presidential elections featured a strong third-party candidate in Ross Perot. But Clinton did run away with the Electoral College vote, winning 370 electoral votes in 1992 and 379 in 1996.
Even those strong victories are dwarfed by Ronald Reagan’s 1984 win, a true landslide. Reagan lost only Washington, DC, and Minnesota, the home state of his Democratic rival, Walter Mondale, thereby securing 525 electoral votes and more than 58% of the popular vote.
Both Richard Nixon in 1972 and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 exceeded 60% in the popular vote for their reelection campaigns, something that seems impossible in today’s political climate. It’s also incredible to think that two such massive landslides would occur within eight years. Nixon’s reelection rival in 1972, then-Sen. George McGovern, lost even his home state of South Dakota and won only Massachusetts and Washington, DC.
Voters were much more likely to split their tickets in those years. While Johnson, a Democrat, enjoyed a strong Democratic majority in the House after his 1964 landslide, voters who gave both Nixon and Reagan all but one state also checked them with a Democratic-controlled House.
The more recent trend is for voters to align their votes for House, Senate and the White House. That trend has led to a period during which the White House and Congress change hands more frequently, although Democrats will keep Senate seats in multiple states won by Trump this year.
Trump’s 2024 win marks the third straight presidential election in which voters have thrown out the incumbent party. The last time that happened in three straight elections was in the late 1800s when Grover Cleveland became the first president to be elected to nonconsecutive terms. Trump is the second.
As long as they win
From historian Nicole Lee Schroeder
It is a really jarring moment to be a historian. To know what might be coming is alarming. To realize that no one around you sees it or acknowledges it is a weird place to be in. Its like time traveling without time traveling.
I study the 19th century and the 2020s look a lot like 1820s. Frequent epidemics? Check. Inflation? Check. Xenophobia and deportation schemes? Check. Womens rights losses? Check. Rampant backlash against womens economic freedoms and jobs outside the home? Check.
Growth of carceral facilities? Check. Legislation to forcibly institutionalize disabled people? Check. Targeted attacks on Indigenous peoples? Check. Extreme religious fervor? Check. Efforts to shape public school curriculum with religious rhetoric? Check. Tariffs? Check.
The antebellum era was a time of progress, but it was also a time fuelled by hate. Slavery fuelled the economy, and antislavery efforts were not very radical on the whole. Hatred against immigrants was widespread and poverty was extensive.
Everything we are seeing right now happened in the early 1800s. And these choices were fuelled by white supremacy, misogyny, and xenophobia. I really wish more people understood that we’ve been here and done this. Life only got better for those who actively oppressed others.
Its time to learn from that history if you havent already. We cannot go back to that. For anyone despairing, its also time to learn from the radical activists who shaped resistance. 19th century activists didnt lose hope, we cannot lose hope either.
Abolitionists, womens rights organizers, workers rights unions, disability rights orgs, and pro-immigration orgs did the work under far worse circumstances with very little global solidarity. We have better tools, connections, and resources.
If youre in despair, pick up a history book. Before every win for human rights came a fight for it. We are now a part of that fight. We are not alone. We have all of these histories to guide us.
America does seem caught in an endless repetitious cycle. Maybe that’s just humanity in general. And she is right that we will all have to pick ourselves up and resume the fight for progress because we simply have no choice. But for the moment, everyone is grieving and angry and stuffing their priors and their hobby horses into their pet explanation for why we lost and until that ritual runs its course there’s really no point in pep talks or organizing. That time will come soon enough.