1) Trump wasn't a large piece of excrement masqueradng (morally and ethically speaking) as a human being;
2) GoP voters hadn't thought this was either acceptable or a good thing and elected him; and
3) GoP leadershit did not lack both courage and principles and wasn't afraid of their base.
On the grander scale, I think all of this is a good thing. It is a reckoning (on many levels) concerning our politics, our society, and human nature. An object lesson for history, if anyone has the courage to learn from it (which is admittedly rare).
On the individual, human scale, I am really unhappy that I have to live through this.
None of this would be happening if OVER 40% OF AMERICAN VOTERS weren't eager to vote for a pile of excrement for president.
As long as Trump makes those who dislike him howl, he's MAGA's man.
Since G H W Bush retired from public life, or maybe Dole conceded the 1996 presidential election, when do you believe any Republican grandees or politicians have been afflicted with moral principles or senses of honor? OK, I exaggerate. However, no Republican politician so afflicted has any chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination for at least a generation.
As I have said too many times to count, until someone convinces me that someone held a gun to their head and forced them to vote for Trump, the source of the problem is obvious. It's the voters.
I have to disagree with your characterization of Trump voters having a preference for a pile of excrement. If you think that is the case, you have no understanding of their view of Trump. It is driven by their view of the libs who they feel are running roughshod over them culturally and the immigrants who are changing the America they knew. Both grievenaces are legit. Trump hates who they hate. That's why they love him. Not because he's a pile of excrement.
I myself do not have a problem with the cultural and demographic changes my country is going through (although I despise current popular music which IMO is NOT music as it lacks melody and harmony which makes it a devolution in music). I am white and well-educated. It doesn't affect me as much as my fellow, less-educated white Americans.
They don't love excrement. They love the fight against the libs.
(disclaimer: use of you and yours is editorial/stylistic and is not aimed at the poster I respond to).
There is a difference between finding someone of character to support and act in what you perceive to be your interest or having someone like Trump, who it is pretty clear acts basically in his own interest and uses you just as much as any of the OTHER elites (because Trump is one of those elites) that you despise,
Trump is, by any objective measure, a piece of shit on the moral and ethical plane--especially by (supposedly) Christian standards. Choosing not to see that goes a long way towards making you something of a piece of shit too.
And I have these vague memories of something about "turn the other cheek," when it comes to fighting. Hmmmmm.
I have no great sympathy for their grievances. I am a white male over 60 years old, so I kind of know where they are coming from. I grew up among them. Worked with them. Served in the military with them. Been there. watched as the manufacturing jobs went away (I watched the death of the steel industry in western PA and mining died in WVa).
I got over it. I worked to get an education. Moved across the country with nothing but the stuff that fit into my pickup to build a better future.
So, I have fellow feeling/understanding for their mind set and experiences--but I have no sympathy in the contemporary sense.
Boo hoo. Times are changing. Boo hoo, culture is changing. It always has. It always will. Stop being the butt hurt snowflakes that you complain the lib/progs are. Most of the changes are affronts to their sensibilities and preferences, not to how they, personally, can live their lives. Not to their livelihoods.
And the changes that did and will screw up their lives were brought on or exacerbated by people like Trump.. the economics pushed by the GoP... but as long as those Other People don't get out of control (or stay out of the country) and as long as women know their place, and as long as people pretend to follow the doctrines of Christ... that's okay.
They love excrement because it fights (supposedly) for them. They are willing to support that excrement (and many of them recognize that he IS excrement) or put up with it. They will even trot out the Old Testament tale about how a pagan can save the faithful to excuse it. They are glad to pretend it isn't shit and that they are good people, clothed in their robes of self-righteousness and self-pity.
When faced with the fact that what they want and what they like is passing away. Is not popular. Is often seen as toxic, they go for the authoritarianism/fascism. If you can't get what you want the right way, might as well dump that and get it however you can, eh?
It's a persuasive rant, especially your experience as confronting the same changes and doing something about it!
Question re the difference between you and those who remained in the Rust Belt to complain about it all: To leave behind where you grew up and lived and find your way to a new place takes a lot of something. Character? Self-confidence? Strength? Not sure. But the image I get of those who remained behind is whatever individual strength they had depended on the social group they were part of. They couldn't imagine separating from that. We humans ARE social beings.
I say that even though I also left my home town 2 years after I graduated from college and three years later moved across the country because I was pursuing a performing career that started in my home town. I had a big extended family, but I was different. I needed more than that. It took guts for me to make my way to some place new. Lots of performers I knew in both NYC and LA did that. I stayed close to my family and my school friends, but there was something greater than those relationships for me. I think I, and you, are unusual in that respect.
I am an introvert and have never been particularly social nor have I ever really felt a need to socialize or be part of a group--usually the reverse. Most of the groups I have been associated with (usually at work) I have never actually felt a part of or connected to.
My focus has always been inward/intellectual.
I am not a psychopath or sociopath, in fact my sense of empathy is pretty strong (I have always found it rather easy to put myself in someone else's shoes, figuratively speaking--which actually makes me a pretty good rhetorician) and I have a pretty rigid set of principles... but the reality is that I do not actually LIKE most people. I tend to (to be frank) find them either boring or not too bright and often irritating (which is hilarious because I teach HS--but I find it easier to accept foolishness and stupidity from adolescents than from adults--they at least have an excuse).
That made it easy for me to pull up stakes and move on. Serving in the military (where you move every few years anyway) made it even easier.
Yes, there are a portion of humans who when faced with drastic change go for authoritarianism/fascism. In every generation, in every society, social psychologists say. Same with Americans in the 21st century (as well as Hungary, Poland, Italy and India - it's not just us). Did the Framers know this in 1787? No. This wasn't really understood until the 20th century. But our Constitution and the rule of law is the most potent basis we have for a liberal democracy. We have to defeat them with Constitutional and legal arguments, regardless of how much social media cossets them.
Something predictable isn't necessarily correct or even grounds for sympathy.
As for the Framers, they did understand human nature, and they were at most skeptical of democracy. However, they were solid egalitarians, and the pursuit of egalitarian values necessitated some democracy. What they didn't foresee is all the subsequent generations who didn't further perfect the Constitution because they figured out how to gain unfair advantages using it as-is. Not least the continued existence of the Electoral College, an institution which made perfect sense in an age when sailing ships were the fastest means of humans and news traveling from place to place and when few people knew anyone who didn't live within 100 miles of where they lived. That age had ceased by the 1820s.
They weren't that solid a bunch of egalitarians (in other than a philosophical sense). They were surprisingly dismissive of the "people" in other than a theoretical sense and had a rather jaundiced view of humanity (which would tend to indicate that they were more conservative/authoritarian by nature than liberal).
A lot of that has to do with the social/political milieu from which they sprang.
I have also read they didn't anticipate that the Congress would align itself with the President. That was part of their separation of powers design, "by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places . . . ambition to counteract ambition" (Federalist No. 51).
The Founders had a very specific understanding of human nature--and it was not a kind one. The structure that they tried to create bears witness to their low regard for people (well, poor and uneducated people--which was the vast majority of the population) despite the high theoretical/philosophical regard.
They relied too much on ambition countering ambition, as they were familiar with the workings of ambition at a smaller/local level (being, usually, prime practitioners of it) but without an understanding that it works differently in different contexts.
The very structures that they put into place almost guaranteed that, at some point, there would be a combination (legislature siding with President rather than contending). They failed to account for the unifying power of faction (thinking themselves and men like themselves as being above faction--even though there were already clear factions in their ranks).
Their understanding was incomplete and rooted in a lot of their own mythology (and there were lessons in their mythology (particularly WRT the Roman Republic) that they ignored).
Hmm . . . interesting. Yes, there were clear factions in their ranks.
Federalist No. 10 (and 9) specifically addresses factions: "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.” Well, both the Civil War and the Trump era proved that prediction false.
51 also addresses factions, but like 9 and 10, only those among the people and not the branches combining along factional lines. So I think you are right.
Questions:
1. If the structure they put in place almost guaranteed the branches combining along factional lines, what structure could they have put in place that didn't?
2. What are the lessons from the Roman Republic they ignored?
I'm well aware of feelings about immigrants. I have extended family in Iowa who've been INCENSED for decades over the inclusion of Univision in their standard cable TV package. Also the odd Spanish language radio stations which have sprouted up in the Midwest. That grievance is 'legit' only if one would be willing to fight any & all change to the last drop of their blood and their last breath. Not much different from the Know Nothings of 170 years ago.
However, I'm a Californian. I have no problem living in a state in which whites are no longer a majority. Most whites in most states aren't; however, since they aren't breeding like bunnies the only way they can see to preserve that core American value, whiteness, ALL immigrants are EVIL (unless they're white, from Norway, say).
Today's Right are reactionaries, and they're as repugnant now as Birchers were in the 1950s. I lack any sympathy for them.
I largely agree with your reasoning for why people in the MAGA base feel threatened and defensive. It is based on cultural/demographic changes that are happening fast and changing the world they knew and made them feel safe.
I think it also has to do with economic/technological changes which almost overnight made factory towns and steel mills obsolete and made it difficult for people without a college degree or STEM training to get a decent job.
Meanwhile there is some truth that institutions like universities, mainstream media and big corporations do lean liberal, and some in these institutions can often seem to be condescending towards non-college rural or blue collar people (I think this perception is partially true but also sometimes just a reflection of someone’s own insecurity). At any rate, I can easily imagine why lots of traditional, red state, religious white conservatives might feel like they’re not being seen or feel marginalized.
The only difference is that I wouldn’t say that the grievance is “justified”. Unlike black people or women in previous times, there aren’t any actual laws preventing them from voting, or getting an education or getting access to healthcare or moving or training for a better job. Yes, all these things are difficult. But it’s been difficult for traditionally marginalized people for centuries and they were more successful individually and as part of a group when they focused on changing unfair laws and bettering themselves instead of focusing on their grievances and radiating resentment and hate.
Republicans have that choice now. The issue is that their leaders, unlike leaders like Fredrick Douglass, MLK Jr., Susan B. Anthony and RBG aren’t telling focusing on moving forward. They aren’t supporting legislation that will help rural, non-college educated white people better themselves. They never have. Because their leaders never really had the same problems. They went to Ivy League schools and had jobs as lawyers and businesses men.
That’s why Trump was so popular. Regardless of where he says he went to school, he doesn’t talk or act like a college-educated person. It’s clear he’s incredibly insecure and defensive about that and he tries to hide that insecurity through anger and resentment
and bullying. In that way, he reflects the insecurity and defensiveness of his base and makes them feel as if their own anger and bullying is justified. It isn’t.
So while I understand and sympathize with Trump supporters and I don’t completely blame them because I feel they’ve been poorly served by the people who ought to have been showing them how to move their lives in a positive direction, as long as they’re free to make choices and those choices end up threatening me or my kids, I still can’t fully agree with it support them. Like JVL, I’m having a hard time seeing a way out of this morass :(
Excellent point about nothing structural, like the law, is stopping them, AND also that their leaders have done nothing about helping rural, non-college whites cause they themselves are not held back by their lack of education. Which makes their leaders all the more exploitive of those voters for their own power gains.
One leader who could do that is Pete B. BUT HE'S GAY!!! So he's unacceptable. So doesn't that tell you that their grivance really is the decline of their religion? That's their identity and their social group and it's becoming a minority. Of course they don't like that because they know what happens to minorities.
All caps Amanda is the best Amanda. But really, the MAGA base was illiberal before the indictment and they will be illiberal after the indictment. The only way to deal with childish illiberals arguing in bad faith is to call it what it is and move on. That's it. Don't play their games, just point out their selective hypocrisy and move on.
"Today you have a large number of Democrats, liberals, and anti-Trump Republican types taking a magnifying glass to technical legal terms, thinking about “the rule of lenity,” and generally trying to find the narrowest possible reading of the law as it can be construed to the defendant’s benefit.
Last night, you had that same defendant spewing lies and issuing threats like a mobster with a Mussolini complex."
And I can't help but flash back to listening to so many legal experts on MSNBC telling us how Bill Barr was such a good pick for AG because he was an "institutionalist". How'd that work out? Legal analysis can help inform us, but it feels as if we're losing the forest for the trees. Can we stop the hand wringing over a criminal indictment? We're not the ones on trial here so let's stop acting like it.
So the woman in Kentucky thinks "they sent the tornado to punish the red states". Who knew "they" had such power. There was a time some members of the Right thought God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sinful, homosexual ways. Maybe the Left is finally harnessing the power the Right so long thought was only theirs.
Similar to Joe Biden both napping in his basement and killing Seal Team 6 in its entirety to cover for the fact that Osama bin Laden is alive and hanging out with Barrack Hussein Obama.
Clearly you've never heard of the wildfires in California THEY created using Jewish Space Layers. Tornadoes are just the next phase. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!
Indeed, someone tell JJ and MTG. The head of the National Weather Service must be subpoenaed to explain how the NWS could have know IN ADVANCE that severe storms would be racing across the country. Coincedence? I think not!
I question the assertion that the helpful woman in the story is necessarily a "Left" voter, for there are kind-hearted, community-spirited people (mostly women, perhaps...) in the Republican/Right spectrum too. Remember the old bumper sticker that read "God is not a Republican---OR a Democrat!" It is true that neither "side" can claim absolute virtue....
Do you remember that ALL of this drama could have been avoided if the GOP Senators did their job and voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial and bar him from holding future office? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
If they had simply done their job and let the political system deal with Trump rather than fobbing off their duty and oath to the Constitution on to the judicial system, then Trump's legal problems would be mostly of germane interest to Trump and his family only, and the rest of us could move on.
“The democrats will take care of that son of a bitch for us.” Mitch McConnell.
I too remember. It feels like a culmination of decades of politicians not taking the hard road and instead putting it on the judicial system, while further politicizing judicial appointments, etc. great times for all……
Good column, perfect length column. Amanda was great last night. Kudos to her. I would think that in the end this indictment doesn't matter much, other than being the all important first. I can't wait for the Georgia indictments because lots of other people are going down besides Trump. When Jack Smith gets done, a large group of GOP operatives and congress folks should also join Trump in the docket. It's all good for America and horrid for the MAGA GOP. So be it.
This indictment doesn’t have to succeed necessarily, as it appears there is a stream of 4 or 5 behind it. They will launch one at a time between now and Election Day, and by that time maybe all but the hard-core MAGA will be so tired of the histrionics of Trump (which they know would not abate if returned to office) that they’ll quit waiting for the official Republican leaders to give them the hi sign, and just Vote No all on their own, out of emotional exhaustion.
" I would think that in the end this indictment doesn't matter much, other than being the all important first."
I totally agree, Colleen. I don't know if other prosecutors were holding back or not given the precedent of indicting a former US President, but I suspect at least some were were. I applaud Bragg etc for having the courage to follow the law and I anticipate a flood of indictments for TFG now that the ice is broken.
The importance of this first indictment has generally been overlooked, I think, and I'm glad you pointed it out.
New York going first also gave them a great deal of intelligence. They saw that putting the entirety of the NYPD on alert and in uniform sent one hell of a message about how much MAGA bull shit would be tolerated. ZERO. And counter protestors learned the MAGA grifters could be driven off with whistles. They are indeed not much more than whiney snow flakes.
That was my thought. NYC is not even approachable by most rednecks from out of town. They were scared to try a big protest there, and it would have been handled smartly if they had. Even the brassy VP-in-waiting, Marjorie Traitor Greene, only stayed a very few minutes before heading back to more hospitable territory.
Thank you for that JVL! Let me quickly add my anemic "like" to the sum. And, btw, I do not consider you a pessimist (as others may) but rather a REALIST (for these are indeed dark days...)
Keep up the good work and thank you again for letting me "ride along" as a B+ subscriber!
I was getting ready to say something similar myself.
Trump got indicted. The country didn't burn down. The sun rose the next morning.
We get wound up in the minutiae of the moment because that's the nature of news delivery these days and the driving need for content content content every minute of every day. Gotta capture those eyeballs.
I think, for some of us, that's the attraction of these kind of newsletters. They hearken back to the days of getting your daily newspaper.
For me, the real bottom line was the absolute demonstration of weakness on the part of the Trumpian base. First, they didn't turn out. The central protest was outnumbered by reporters, let alone counterprotestors. Nationwide, it amounted to handfuls of goobs in defunct big box store parking lots and street corners.
And on that same day, the far more momentous event of the Wisconsin supreme court flipping lib went down, which is a major check on the ability of the MAGAs to subvert the electoral process.
The GOP keeps painting itself more tightly into the corner politically and demographically. Their ability to hijack the system is eroding.
We still got some bastards that need kicking and we need a second political party committed to the maintenance of democratic society, but the evidence is that we are likely past the worst of the storm. We've given an incoming generation a lesson in the importance of civics and civil society and the importance of protecting it.
And as the indictments pile up, Trump is going to divert so much energy defending himself from his crimes that he's going to flounder about, raging impotently and whining nonstop. The myth of the mighty winner is broken, and what's left is the bitter carping of a broken man who never was.
The Republican reaction to this indictment would have been the same reaction had it been the Jack Smith cases or the Fanny Willis case. They have made their pact with the devil and he will fiddle them into hell. The only remedy for any of this is for the voters to have their fill of it and vote them out of office, over and over again, as happened last night in Wisconsin.
As usual, JVL is right on. I would add two things. First, regarding the weakness v. strength question, if we assume that this is a "weak" case, then what we are seeing is what thousands of Americans experience experience every day: aggressive over-charging by a DA looking to bully them into taking a plea rather than risking prison time by going to trial. Of course, those Americans are disproportionately Black and brown and they take those pleas because they know that when over-charging prosecutors stand up in front of a jury and accuse them of a crime, many American jurors will tend to see a Black or brown defendant as having a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. So, welcome to the American system, Donald Trump! It reminds of the Scooter Libby case back in 2006-7. Conservatives were shocked - shocked! - that a Federal prosecutor went after their man relentlessly until he found something he could convict the guy of. That's what Federal prosecutors do! Second point. There may be no video of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, but the recordings of the phone calls in Georgia are pretty darn close. Trump may think they were perfect - he thinks everything he says is perfect - but a first year law student could take the transcript of that call to Raffensberger and circle the parts that establish the elements of the crime of election interference under Georgia law. And while those MAGA folks manning the rescue efforts David French attended won't be convinced, a Fulton County jury sure might be, and it's all fun and games until he actually gets convicted.
The media (good and bad) has done everything in their power to hype this just to raise the blood pressure of all that follow. I don't give a fork. We do know the orange one committed crimes. I doubt Bragg would've brought charges unjustly. Let the law play out.
Thank you for your clear-eyed analysis Jon. The orange one has many more problems coming down the pike. he has people serving months and years in jail for J6. I don't believe he can get away unscathed.
1. Did you mean to use "flout the law," (meaning, to openly disregard), or "flaunt the law," (meaning, to display ostentatiously)? People often use the former, when they really mean the latter.
2. Amanda is 100% right. You hold authoritarians accountable by...holding them accountable. Al Capone went to prison on tax evasion. Ted Bundy was captured after running a stop sign. Just because the prosecutor is a Democrat and Trump is a Republican former president, doesn't make it political. He isn't being charged b/c he's a Republican; he's being charged b/c they think he's guilty.
If some rogue prosecutor wants to drum up some charges against Obama or Hillary, I hope we have enough confidence in the legal system that a jury will acquit them in the event there is no evidence of a crime, or in the alternative, convict them if there is.
Real authoritarianism, real illiberalism, would be a system where there are never trials, where the community is forbidden from holding people accountable. Sure, the system makes mistakes. But that's little reason for eschewing it.
The difference with Trump is that while some politicians are discreet about their crimes (not covert– they don't try and cover things up, but rather, they do what they can to stay within the bounds of the law), Trump is shameless. He openly flouts (YSWIDT) it, and then dares people to come after him.
Part of the problem is that, for far too long, our society has allowed men like Trump, Epstein, Weinstein, R. Kelly, and others, to have a free pass. So the public has become conditioned to believe that the rich and famous can largely get away with anything.
If you want to stop it, then you start prosecuting it. Just like broken windows policing. Arrest the turnstile jumpers, and haul them off to jail. Paint over the graffiti as soon as you see it. Make Trump answer for falsifying his documents.
I love today’s Triad. We can only ask the legal system to follow the law. Tucker and his cabal will spin no matter what the case is. The right-winged echo chamber can always make it to be the faults of Democrats. Trump has tremendous power over the GOP, who likely thinks he can win the EC in 2024 but the party will certainly lose the presidency with another candidate if Trump takes his voters with him. With that cynical calculation in mind, they will defend Trump even if he does shoot someone on 5th avenue.
AMANDA CARPENTER is best Amanda Carpenter because she makes a great overarching point. Trump broke the law and should be held accountable. No more or no less than anyone else. I think it’s worth noting that Trump wants to execute drug dealers, on a very short timeline and he wants police to abuse people who have been arrested. He’s lucky he’s not being charged by a government like he would run.
This isn’t about the case being strong or weak and in fact no one is arguing that he didn’t do it. Maggie Haberman made a great point on CNN last night; this case seems to be trivial. Therein lies the problem. Trump has blatantly committed serious crimes that threaten the nation so a 34-count fraud that was his first cheat seems to be of no real consequence. I believe that it is of major consequence because he escaladed his criminal activity from there. The only risk now it seems is that no one who has been changed in this manner challenged this approach so apparently this hasn’t been tested in court. I believe Cy Vance talked about that last night, but he did say his office charged this multiple times in the past, if I remember correctly.
We have not seen any evidence and there were not a lot of detail in the indictment. I suspect that was by design because Bragg does not want to wear out the evidence, he has by having it sliced and diced and trampled on in public. By the time of a trial prospective jurors would know of every detail and the evidence would seem stale. Discovery prevents any surprises for the defense but a to a jury, all the evidence should be fresh.
Kudos for your use of escalade. I thought you meant escalate but escalade is a much better word. He indeed climbed over his criminal activity to reach new heights.
Thanks JVL for the fantastic breakdown of this somewhat complicated case. It has to play out. We can’t have AGs making decisions on if a case helps or hurts the prospects of a candidate or rich person in position of power. More than ever everyday Americans need to see this serial law breaker held accountable. I feel Sarah’s trepidation from the live show last night. Her focus groups sound deeply disturbing. But we knew these people would boomerang back to him. It’s pure emotion, not logic. Unfortunately the more complicated this case is (and the more the media mischaracterizes it) the less likely those Trump defenders will see the light.
None of this would be happening if:
1) Trump wasn't a large piece of excrement masqueradng (morally and ethically speaking) as a human being;
2) GoP voters hadn't thought this was either acceptable or a good thing and elected him; and
3) GoP leadershit did not lack both courage and principles and wasn't afraid of their base.
On the grander scale, I think all of this is a good thing. It is a reckoning (on many levels) concerning our politics, our society, and human nature. An object lesson for history, if anyone has the courage to learn from it (which is admittedly rare).
On the individual, human scale, I am really unhappy that I have to live through this.
None of this would be happening if OVER 40% OF AMERICAN VOTERS weren't eager to vote for a pile of excrement for president.
As long as Trump makes those who dislike him howl, he's MAGA's man.
Since G H W Bush retired from public life, or maybe Dole conceded the 1996 presidential election, when do you believe any Republican grandees or politicians have been afflicted with moral principles or senses of honor? OK, I exaggerate. However, no Republican politician so afflicted has any chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination for at least a generation.
As I have said too many times to count, until someone convinces me that someone held a gun to their head and forced them to vote for Trump, the source of the problem is obvious. It's the voters.
I have to disagree with your characterization of Trump voters having a preference for a pile of excrement. If you think that is the case, you have no understanding of their view of Trump. It is driven by their view of the libs who they feel are running roughshod over them culturally and the immigrants who are changing the America they knew. Both grievenaces are legit. Trump hates who they hate. That's why they love him. Not because he's a pile of excrement.
I myself do not have a problem with the cultural and demographic changes my country is going through (although I despise current popular music which IMO is NOT music as it lacks melody and harmony which makes it a devolution in music). I am white and well-educated. It doesn't affect me as much as my fellow, less-educated white Americans.
They don't love excrement. They love the fight against the libs.
Shit is still shit, even if it is "yours."
(disclaimer: use of you and yours is editorial/stylistic and is not aimed at the poster I respond to).
There is a difference between finding someone of character to support and act in what you perceive to be your interest or having someone like Trump, who it is pretty clear acts basically in his own interest and uses you just as much as any of the OTHER elites (because Trump is one of those elites) that you despise,
Trump is, by any objective measure, a piece of shit on the moral and ethical plane--especially by (supposedly) Christian standards. Choosing not to see that goes a long way towards making you something of a piece of shit too.
And I have these vague memories of something about "turn the other cheek," when it comes to fighting. Hmmmmm.
I have no great sympathy for their grievances. I am a white male over 60 years old, so I kind of know where they are coming from. I grew up among them. Worked with them. Served in the military with them. Been there. watched as the manufacturing jobs went away (I watched the death of the steel industry in western PA and mining died in WVa).
I got over it. I worked to get an education. Moved across the country with nothing but the stuff that fit into my pickup to build a better future.
So, I have fellow feeling/understanding for their mind set and experiences--but I have no sympathy in the contemporary sense.
Boo hoo. Times are changing. Boo hoo, culture is changing. It always has. It always will. Stop being the butt hurt snowflakes that you complain the lib/progs are. Most of the changes are affronts to their sensibilities and preferences, not to how they, personally, can live their lives. Not to their livelihoods.
And the changes that did and will screw up their lives were brought on or exacerbated by people like Trump.. the economics pushed by the GoP... but as long as those Other People don't get out of control (or stay out of the country) and as long as women know their place, and as long as people pretend to follow the doctrines of Christ... that's okay.
They love excrement because it fights (supposedly) for them. They are willing to support that excrement (and many of them recognize that he IS excrement) or put up with it. They will even trot out the Old Testament tale about how a pagan can save the faithful to excuse it. They are glad to pretend it isn't shit and that they are good people, clothed in their robes of self-righteousness and self-pity.
When faced with the fact that what they want and what they like is passing away. Is not popular. Is often seen as toxic, they go for the authoritarianism/fascism. If you can't get what you want the right way, might as well dump that and get it however you can, eh?
Sorry for the rant.
It's a persuasive rant, especially your experience as confronting the same changes and doing something about it!
Question re the difference between you and those who remained in the Rust Belt to complain about it all: To leave behind where you grew up and lived and find your way to a new place takes a lot of something. Character? Self-confidence? Strength? Not sure. But the image I get of those who remained behind is whatever individual strength they had depended on the social group they were part of. They couldn't imagine separating from that. We humans ARE social beings.
I say that even though I also left my home town 2 years after I graduated from college and three years later moved across the country because I was pursuing a performing career that started in my home town. I had a big extended family, but I was different. I needed more than that. It took guts for me to make my way to some place new. Lots of performers I knew in both NYC and LA did that. I stayed close to my family and my school friends, but there was something greater than those relationships for me. I think I, and you, are unusual in that respect.
Your thoughts?
I am an introvert and have never been particularly social nor have I ever really felt a need to socialize or be part of a group--usually the reverse. Most of the groups I have been associated with (usually at work) I have never actually felt a part of or connected to.
My focus has always been inward/intellectual.
I am not a psychopath or sociopath, in fact my sense of empathy is pretty strong (I have always found it rather easy to put myself in someone else's shoes, figuratively speaking--which actually makes me a pretty good rhetorician) and I have a pretty rigid set of principles... but the reality is that I do not actually LIKE most people. I tend to (to be frank) find them either boring or not too bright and often irritating (which is hilarious because I teach HS--but I find it easier to accept foolishness and stupidity from adolescents than from adults--they at least have an excuse).
That made it easy for me to pull up stakes and move on. Serving in the military (where you move every few years anyway) made it even easier.
Thanks. I am an inward/intellectual introvert too and find most people to be a bore.
Yes, there are a portion of humans who when faced with drastic change go for authoritarianism/fascism. In every generation, in every society, social psychologists say. Same with Americans in the 21st century (as well as Hungary, Poland, Italy and India - it's not just us). Did the Framers know this in 1787? No. This wasn't really understood until the 20th century. But our Constitution and the rule of law is the most potent basis we have for a liberal democracy. We have to defeat them with Constitutional and legal arguments, regardless of how much social media cossets them.
Something predictable isn't necessarily correct or even grounds for sympathy.
As for the Framers, they did understand human nature, and they were at most skeptical of democracy. However, they were solid egalitarians, and the pursuit of egalitarian values necessitated some democracy. What they didn't foresee is all the subsequent generations who didn't further perfect the Constitution because they figured out how to gain unfair advantages using it as-is. Not least the continued existence of the Electoral College, an institution which made perfect sense in an age when sailing ships were the fastest means of humans and news traveling from place to place and when few people knew anyone who didn't live within 100 miles of where they lived. That age had ceased by the 1820s.
They weren't that solid a bunch of egalitarians (in other than a philosophical sense). They were surprisingly dismissive of the "people" in other than a theoretical sense and had a rather jaundiced view of humanity (which would tend to indicate that they were more conservative/authoritarian by nature than liberal).
A lot of that has to do with the social/political milieu from which they sprang.
I have also read they didn't anticipate that the Congress would align itself with the President. That was part of their separation of powers design, "by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places . . . ambition to counteract ambition" (Federalist No. 51).
The Founders had a very specific understanding of human nature--and it was not a kind one. The structure that they tried to create bears witness to their low regard for people (well, poor and uneducated people--which was the vast majority of the population) despite the high theoretical/philosophical regard.
They relied too much on ambition countering ambition, as they were familiar with the workings of ambition at a smaller/local level (being, usually, prime practitioners of it) but without an understanding that it works differently in different contexts.
The very structures that they put into place almost guaranteed that, at some point, there would be a combination (legislature siding with President rather than contending). They failed to account for the unifying power of faction (thinking themselves and men like themselves as being above faction--even though there were already clear factions in their ranks).
Their understanding was incomplete and rooted in a lot of their own mythology (and there were lessons in their mythology (particularly WRT the Roman Republic) that they ignored).
Hmm . . . interesting. Yes, there were clear factions in their ranks.
Federalist No. 10 (and 9) specifically addresses factions: "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.” Well, both the Civil War and the Trump era proved that prediction false.
51 also addresses factions, but like 9 and 10, only those among the people and not the branches combining along factional lines. So I think you are right.
Questions:
1. If the structure they put in place almost guaranteed the branches combining along factional lines, what structure could they have put in place that didn't?
2. What are the lessons from the Roman Republic they ignored?
I'm well aware of feelings about immigrants. I have extended family in Iowa who've been INCENSED for decades over the inclusion of Univision in their standard cable TV package. Also the odd Spanish language radio stations which have sprouted up in the Midwest. That grievance is 'legit' only if one would be willing to fight any & all change to the last drop of their blood and their last breath. Not much different from the Know Nothings of 170 years ago.
However, I'm a Californian. I have no problem living in a state in which whites are no longer a majority. Most whites in most states aren't; however, since they aren't breeding like bunnies the only way they can see to preserve that core American value, whiteness, ALL immigrants are EVIL (unless they're white, from Norway, say).
Today's Right are reactionaries, and they're as repugnant now as Birchers were in the 1950s. I lack any sympathy for them.
I largely agree with your reasoning for why people in the MAGA base feel threatened and defensive. It is based on cultural/demographic changes that are happening fast and changing the world they knew and made them feel safe.
I think it also has to do with economic/technological changes which almost overnight made factory towns and steel mills obsolete and made it difficult for people without a college degree or STEM training to get a decent job.
Meanwhile there is some truth that institutions like universities, mainstream media and big corporations do lean liberal, and some in these institutions can often seem to be condescending towards non-college rural or blue collar people (I think this perception is partially true but also sometimes just a reflection of someone’s own insecurity). At any rate, I can easily imagine why lots of traditional, red state, religious white conservatives might feel like they’re not being seen or feel marginalized.
The only difference is that I wouldn’t say that the grievance is “justified”. Unlike black people or women in previous times, there aren’t any actual laws preventing them from voting, or getting an education or getting access to healthcare or moving or training for a better job. Yes, all these things are difficult. But it’s been difficult for traditionally marginalized people for centuries and they were more successful individually and as part of a group when they focused on changing unfair laws and bettering themselves instead of focusing on their grievances and radiating resentment and hate.
Republicans have that choice now. The issue is that their leaders, unlike leaders like Fredrick Douglass, MLK Jr., Susan B. Anthony and RBG aren’t telling focusing on moving forward. They aren’t supporting legislation that will help rural, non-college educated white people better themselves. They never have. Because their leaders never really had the same problems. They went to Ivy League schools and had jobs as lawyers and businesses men.
That’s why Trump was so popular. Regardless of where he says he went to school, he doesn’t talk or act like a college-educated person. It’s clear he’s incredibly insecure and defensive about that and he tries to hide that insecurity through anger and resentment
and bullying. In that way, he reflects the insecurity and defensiveness of his base and makes them feel as if their own anger and bullying is justified. It isn’t.
So while I understand and sympathize with Trump supporters and I don’t completely blame them because I feel they’ve been poorly served by the people who ought to have been showing them how to move their lives in a positive direction, as long as they’re free to make choices and those choices end up threatening me or my kids, I still can’t fully agree with it support them. Like JVL, I’m having a hard time seeing a way out of this morass :(
Excellent point about nothing structural, like the law, is stopping them, AND also that their leaders have done nothing about helping rural, non-college whites cause they themselves are not held back by their lack of education. Which makes their leaders all the more exploitive of those voters for their own power gains.
One leader who could do that is Pete B. BUT HE'S GAY!!! So he's unacceptable. So doesn't that tell you that their grivance really is the decline of their religion? That's their identity and their social group and it's becoming a minority. Of course they don't like that because they know what happens to minorities.
All caps Amanda is the best Amanda. But really, the MAGA base was illiberal before the indictment and they will be illiberal after the indictment. The only way to deal with childish illiberals arguing in bad faith is to call it what it is and move on. That's it. Don't play their games, just point out their selective hypocrisy and move on.
PS, seeing JVL being all-smiles on the TuNB last night made my heart feel fuzzy and warm
Right on!
This is exactly right.
"Today you have a large number of Democrats, liberals, and anti-Trump Republican types taking a magnifying glass to technical legal terms, thinking about “the rule of lenity,” and generally trying to find the narrowest possible reading of the law as it can be construed to the defendant’s benefit.
Last night, you had that same defendant spewing lies and issuing threats like a mobster with a Mussolini complex."
And I can't help but flash back to listening to so many legal experts on MSNBC telling us how Bill Barr was such a good pick for AG because he was an "institutionalist". How'd that work out? Legal analysis can help inform us, but it feels as if we're losing the forest for the trees. Can we stop the hand wringing over a criminal indictment? We're not the ones on trial here so let's stop acting like it.
Robert Hubbell had a good analysis in his substack newsletter
Thanks, will check that out!
So the woman in Kentucky thinks "they sent the tornado to punish the red states". Who knew "they" had such power. There was a time some members of the Right thought God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sinful, homosexual ways. Maybe the Left is finally harnessing the power the Right so long thought was only theirs.
Similar to Joe Biden both napping in his basement and killing Seal Team 6 in its entirety to cover for the fact that Osama bin Laden is alive and hanging out with Barrack Hussein Obama.
Clearly you've never heard of the wildfires in California THEY created using Jewish Space Layers. Tornadoes are just the next phase. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!
And Hebrew National Hotdogs are Soros-backed!!
(Borowitz)
I miss Twitter only because I can't follow Andy Borowitz and Ian Bremmer now :-(
I get e-mails from the New Yorker with him, though he doesn't make it into the mag.
Indeed, someone tell JJ and MTG. The head of the National Weather Service must be subpoenaed to explain how the NWS could have know IN ADVANCE that severe storms would be racing across the country. Coincedence? I think not!
I question the assertion that the helpful woman in the story is necessarily a "Left" voter, for there are kind-hearted, community-spirited people (mostly women, perhaps...) in the Republican/Right spectrum too. Remember the old bumper sticker that read "God is not a Republican---OR a Democrat!" It is true that neither "side" can claim absolute virtue....
I’m pretty sure the woman was conservative. That’s why she thought “they” (the left) were sending tornadoes to punish the red states.
Perhaps by “they” she meant God? Maybe God has changed sides?
Who knew God's pronouns are They/Them! :)
Do you remember that ALL of this drama could have been avoided if the GOP Senators did their job and voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial and bar him from holding future office? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
If they had simply done their job and let the political system deal with Trump rather than fobbing off their duty and oath to the Constitution on to the judicial system, then Trump's legal problems would be mostly of germane interest to Trump and his family only, and the rest of us could move on.
“The democrats will take care of that son of a bitch for us.” Mitch McConnell.
I too remember. It feels like a culmination of decades of politicians not taking the hard road and instead putting it on the judicial system, while further politicizing judicial appointments, etc. great times for all……
Exactly.
Good column, perfect length column. Amanda was great last night. Kudos to her. I would think that in the end this indictment doesn't matter much, other than being the all important first. I can't wait for the Georgia indictments because lots of other people are going down besides Trump. When Jack Smith gets done, a large group of GOP operatives and congress folks should also join Trump in the docket. It's all good for America and horrid for the MAGA GOP. So be it.
Amanda was awesome last night.
This indictment doesn’t have to succeed necessarily, as it appears there is a stream of 4 or 5 behind it. They will launch one at a time between now and Election Day, and by that time maybe all but the hard-core MAGA will be so tired of the histrionics of Trump (which they know would not abate if returned to office) that they’ll quit waiting for the official Republican leaders to give them the hi sign, and just Vote No all on their own, out of emotional exhaustion.
Or they will be broke paying for his legal fees in $47 increments.
" I would think that in the end this indictment doesn't matter much, other than being the all important first."
I totally agree, Colleen. I don't know if other prosecutors were holding back or not given the precedent of indicting a former US President, but I suspect at least some were were. I applaud Bragg etc for having the courage to follow the law and I anticipate a flood of indictments for TFG now that the ice is broken.
The importance of this first indictment has generally been overlooked, I think, and I'm glad you pointed it out.
New York going first also gave them a great deal of intelligence. They saw that putting the entirety of the NYPD on alert and in uniform sent one hell of a message about how much MAGA bull shit would be tolerated. ZERO. And counter protestors learned the MAGA grifters could be driven off with whistles. They are indeed not much more than whiney snow flakes.
That was my thought. NYC is not even approachable by most rednecks from out of town. They were scared to try a big protest there, and it would have been handled smartly if they had. Even the brassy VP-in-waiting, Marjorie Traitor Greene, only stayed a very few minutes before heading back to more hospitable territory.
Thank you for that JVL! Let me quickly add my anemic "like" to the sum. And, btw, I do not consider you a pessimist (as others may) but rather a REALIST (for these are indeed dark days...)
Keep up the good work and thank you again for letting me "ride along" as a B+ subscriber!
I was getting ready to say something similar myself.
Trump got indicted. The country didn't burn down. The sun rose the next morning.
We get wound up in the minutiae of the moment because that's the nature of news delivery these days and the driving need for content content content every minute of every day. Gotta capture those eyeballs.
I think, for some of us, that's the attraction of these kind of newsletters. They hearken back to the days of getting your daily newspaper.
For me, the real bottom line was the absolute demonstration of weakness on the part of the Trumpian base. First, they didn't turn out. The central protest was outnumbered by reporters, let alone counterprotestors. Nationwide, it amounted to handfuls of goobs in defunct big box store parking lots and street corners.
And on that same day, the far more momentous event of the Wisconsin supreme court flipping lib went down, which is a major check on the ability of the MAGAs to subvert the electoral process.
The GOP keeps painting itself more tightly into the corner politically and demographically. Their ability to hijack the system is eroding.
We still got some bastards that need kicking and we need a second political party committed to the maintenance of democratic society, but the evidence is that we are likely past the worst of the storm. We've given an incoming generation a lesson in the importance of civics and civil society and the importance of protecting it.
And as the indictments pile up, Trump is going to divert so much energy defending himself from his crimes that he's going to flounder about, raging impotently and whining nonstop. The myth of the mighty winner is broken, and what's left is the bitter carping of a broken man who never was.
Yup, if only they cod see all the floundering and carping will net Trump nothing. (Sorry, sorry, I couldn't resist, I'll leave quietly.)
Don't be koi now, if you see anything else coming down the pike from your perch, let minnow.
I smell something fishy going on here.
Roe for it, Kate! They're onto us!
OK, now you're just making me crabby.
Sorry, we'll get back to the normal commentary and lobstervations.
Tuna in tomorrow folks and you'll sea.
The Republican reaction to this indictment would have been the same reaction had it been the Jack Smith cases or the Fanny Willis case. They have made their pact with the devil and he will fiddle them into hell. The only remedy for any of this is for the voters to have their fill of it and vote them out of office, over and over again, as happened last night in Wisconsin.
As usual, JVL is right on. I would add two things. First, regarding the weakness v. strength question, if we assume that this is a "weak" case, then what we are seeing is what thousands of Americans experience experience every day: aggressive over-charging by a DA looking to bully them into taking a plea rather than risking prison time by going to trial. Of course, those Americans are disproportionately Black and brown and they take those pleas because they know that when over-charging prosecutors stand up in front of a jury and accuse them of a crime, many American jurors will tend to see a Black or brown defendant as having a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. So, welcome to the American system, Donald Trump! It reminds of the Scooter Libby case back in 2006-7. Conservatives were shocked - shocked! - that a Federal prosecutor went after their man relentlessly until he found something he could convict the guy of. That's what Federal prosecutors do! Second point. There may be no video of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, but the recordings of the phone calls in Georgia are pretty darn close. Trump may think they were perfect - he thinks everything he says is perfect - but a first year law student could take the transcript of that call to Raffensberger and circle the parts that establish the elements of the crime of election interference under Georgia law. And while those MAGA folks manning the rescue efforts David French attended won't be convinced, a Fulton County jury sure might be, and it's all fun and games until he actually gets convicted.
The media (good and bad) has done everything in their power to hype this just to raise the blood pressure of all that follow. I don't give a fork. We do know the orange one committed crimes. I doubt Bragg would've brought charges unjustly. Let the law play out.
Thank you for your clear-eyed analysis Jon. The orange one has many more problems coming down the pike. he has people serving months and years in jail for J6. I don't believe he can get away unscathed.
Let the Law play out.
A couple of points:
1. Did you mean to use "flout the law," (meaning, to openly disregard), or "flaunt the law," (meaning, to display ostentatiously)? People often use the former, when they really mean the latter.
2. Amanda is 100% right. You hold authoritarians accountable by...holding them accountable. Al Capone went to prison on tax evasion. Ted Bundy was captured after running a stop sign. Just because the prosecutor is a Democrat and Trump is a Republican former president, doesn't make it political. He isn't being charged b/c he's a Republican; he's being charged b/c they think he's guilty.
If some rogue prosecutor wants to drum up some charges against Obama or Hillary, I hope we have enough confidence in the legal system that a jury will acquit them in the event there is no evidence of a crime, or in the alternative, convict them if there is.
Real authoritarianism, real illiberalism, would be a system where there are never trials, where the community is forbidden from holding people accountable. Sure, the system makes mistakes. But that's little reason for eschewing it.
The difference with Trump is that while some politicians are discreet about their crimes (not covert– they don't try and cover things up, but rather, they do what they can to stay within the bounds of the law), Trump is shameless. He openly flouts (YSWIDT) it, and then dares people to come after him.
Part of the problem is that, for far too long, our society has allowed men like Trump, Epstein, Weinstein, R. Kelly, and others, to have a free pass. So the public has become conditioned to believe that the rich and famous can largely get away with anything.
If you want to stop it, then you start prosecuting it. Just like broken windows policing. Arrest the turnstile jumpers, and haul them off to jail. Paint over the graffiti as soon as you see it. Make Trump answer for falsifying his documents.
I love today’s Triad. We can only ask the legal system to follow the law. Tucker and his cabal will spin no matter what the case is. The right-winged echo chamber can always make it to be the faults of Democrats. Trump has tremendous power over the GOP, who likely thinks he can win the EC in 2024 but the party will certainly lose the presidency with another candidate if Trump takes his voters with him. With that cynical calculation in mind, they will defend Trump even if he does shoot someone on 5th avenue.
AMANDA CARPENTER is best Amanda Carpenter because she makes a great overarching point. Trump broke the law and should be held accountable. No more or no less than anyone else. I think it’s worth noting that Trump wants to execute drug dealers, on a very short timeline and he wants police to abuse people who have been arrested. He’s lucky he’s not being charged by a government like he would run.
This isn’t about the case being strong or weak and in fact no one is arguing that he didn’t do it. Maggie Haberman made a great point on CNN last night; this case seems to be trivial. Therein lies the problem. Trump has blatantly committed serious crimes that threaten the nation so a 34-count fraud that was his first cheat seems to be of no real consequence. I believe that it is of major consequence because he escaladed his criminal activity from there. The only risk now it seems is that no one who has been changed in this manner challenged this approach so apparently this hasn’t been tested in court. I believe Cy Vance talked about that last night, but he did say his office charged this multiple times in the past, if I remember correctly.
We have not seen any evidence and there were not a lot of detail in the indictment. I suspect that was by design because Bragg does not want to wear out the evidence, he has by having it sliced and diced and trampled on in public. By the time of a trial prospective jurors would know of every detail and the evidence would seem stale. Discovery prevents any surprises for the defense but a to a jury, all the evidence should be fresh.
Kudos for your use of escalade. I thought you meant escalate but escalade is a much better word. He indeed climbed over his criminal activity to reach new heights.
oops
Would the case look trivial if a candidate for mayor of a city did what is alleged in the indictment? Serious question.
This is what happens when Trump makes us numb to what we would ordinarily consider very serious.
Using "flaunt" when you mean "flout" makes the Baby Jesus cry.
Would you please stop flouting your knowledge
Thanks JVL for the fantastic breakdown of this somewhat complicated case. It has to play out. We can’t have AGs making decisions on if a case helps or hurts the prospects of a candidate or rich person in position of power. More than ever everyday Americans need to see this serial law breaker held accountable. I feel Sarah’s trepidation from the live show last night. Her focus groups sound deeply disturbing. But we knew these people would boomerang back to him. It’s pure emotion, not logic. Unfortunately the more complicated this case is (and the more the media mischaracterizes it) the less likely those Trump defenders will see the light.