thebulwark--2020-10-27--Trump as a Champion of ‘Bourgeois Values’? Not So Fast.

On the weekend of October 17 , the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy interview with political writer and historian Fred Siegel , conducted by a Journal contributor , Tunku Varadarajan .
The piece is headlined “ An Ex-Liberal Reluctantly Supports Trump ” —but Siegel never considered himself a liberal ; he viewed himself as a democratic socialist and his support for Trump is anything but “ reluctant.
” The piece ’ s subheadline notes how Siegel “ came to appreciate the president ’ s defense of ‘ bourgeois values ’ against the ‘ clerisy.
’ ” The first question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal editors think they would achieve by giving Siegel this important slot in their paper just two weeks before an election ?
Siegel has a new essay collection out from an obscure press , but that ’ s a flimsy hook on which to hang this interview .
One gets the sense that the Journal wanted to portray someone who purportedly shifted to deciding to vote for Trump , in the hope that some readers who are on the fence might be persuaded to do the same .
Unlike a conversation with , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kimball or other such avid , longtime supporters of Trump , an interview with Siegel might give such wavering readers the cover they need .
Fred Siegel and I have been friends for decades , going back to the late 1980s and early ’ 90s when we were both democratic socialists who belonged to the socialist group started by Michael Harrington that eventually became Democratic Socialists of America .
In January 1993 , Siegel and I both spoke at a major conference in Washington , D.C. , sponsored by an anti-Communist offshoot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S.A. Called “ Does America Need a Social Democratic Movement ?
” the conference featured heavy hitters such as William Galston , Seymour Martin Lipset , Will Marshall , Michael Novak , Paul Starr , and Charles Lane .
Charles Krauthammer also attended the sessions .
Siegel ’ s comments then were prescient and helps us to understand how he came to be where he is today .
He brought up the issue of immigration , back when few were talking about it as a problem .
Immigration , he said , once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present ( remember that the present is 1993 ! )
however , “ a new wave of immigration .
.
.
shattered that solidarity.
” He explained : In the same manner , another man of the political left made much the same argument in 1998 , but on a broader canvas .
Richard Rorty wrote in his pathbreaking book Achieving our Country—which did not get a good reception or reviews at the time—that soon in America , unorganized skilled workers and union members would realize that their jobs would be exported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that , once he is elected , the smug bureaucrats , tricky lawyers , overpaid bond salesmen , and postmodernist professors will no long be calling the shots.
” Next , Rorty wrote , many gains made by black Americans and women would disappear .
Then “ jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion .
.
.
.
All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlet.
” Rorty was thinking about Pat Buchanan , Trump ’ s demagogic predecessor , when he wrote those words .
Were Rorty still with us and writing , he would likely be saying the same thing and using the same words to describe and warn about Donald Trump .
But unlike Siegel , Rorty remained a social democrat—albeit one who , like Siegel , was in despair because a new cultural left had distanced itself from trade unions and , by turning away from programs to reduce inequality , stressed only group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that programs like NAFTA , introduced by Bill Clinton , would harm those who had been traditional Democratic voters .
Rorty showed that one could make such a critique while remaining in the center left .
Siegel turned for an answer to exactly the type of demagogue Rorty warned about .
Siegel later came to prominence with two important books , one on the state of American cities , the other a biography of Rudy Giuliani at the height of the mayor ’ s popularity , which received a rave front-page review by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Book Review .
Although a conservative when he wrote these books , Siegel was well within the mainstream , and was a nuanced and sophisticated writer and thinker ; hence all the positive reviews he received from liberal writers .
Much of Siegel ’ s work provided a meaningful and serious critique of what generally is called “ liberalism ” today—not the liberal philosophy developed in the age of Enlightenment and reason , but the political views of those purporting to be liberals in the postwar American context .
His 2014 book The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has Undermined the Middle Class received positive reviews only in conservative venues .
( I reviewed it for National Review . )
Toward the end of that book , Siegel developed an account of how the Obama administration especially served the needs of both East and West Coast elites , while the middle classes supposedly served by Democrats suffered greatly .
Still , understanding the failings of liberals is not the same as having a positive case for Trump .
In his Journal interview , Siegel gives us three reasons for his support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s foreign policy has been a success : Today , however , ISIS is anything but destroyed , and is again beginning to pose a threat .
The peace agreements Israel signed with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are a clear success—although the fact that previously hostile Arab states joined Israel due to their fear of Iran ’ s growing strength is a reminder that Trump ’ s increasing sanctions against Iran had not produced the regime change the administration obviously hoped for .
Notably absent from Siegel ’ s list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Venezuela or North Korea .
Nicolás Maduro is still head of Venezuela , increasing repression of its citizens , many of whom have fled or are attempting to do so , and opposition leader Juan Guaidó has failed in his bid to replace the regime and begin a policy of democratization .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s love affair with Kim Jong-un has not led to denuclearization—in fact , Kim ’ s regime just flaunted a giant new ICBM .
The personal diplomacy Trump bragged about turned out to be the careful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Korea ’ s nuclear arsenal is now obviously larger than when Trump took office , and the danger of war still exists .
The second—and most disturbing—element in Siegel ’ s brief for Trump is his admiration for Trump ’ s purported “ ability to withstand a prolonged coup attempt by the Democrats and the media.
” Siegel suggests that the investigations of Russia and Trump by the Democrats took place because of their reliance on the Steele dossier , even though the investigations began before that document ever came up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” qualities that have allowed Trump to survive politically , well , it ’ s easy to survive a coup that doesn ’ t actually exist .
Third , Siegel believes that Trump is a “ champion of ‘ bourgeois values , ’ under threat from the ‘ clerisy , ’ ” his word for the belief of the elites who supposedly “ despise ” such values .
Biden , by contrast , is a weak man who will become their “ captive , ” while waiting in the wings is the dreaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become president and is the “ embodiment ” of elites who rule over the middle and working classes .
Echoing the old words of Jeane Kirkpatrick during Ronald Reagan 1984 re-election campaign , Siegel calls Harris a “ San Francisco Democrat ” who will easily control Biden and institute far-left programs such as the Green New Deal .
Rather than seeing Biden succumb to Harris during the campaign , we have seen her abandon her call for Medicare for all and a single-payer system : She supports the repair and expansion of Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creation of a new government-controlled universal health care system .
Similarly , she abandoned her opposition to fracking—a key demand of the left—and now stands by Joe Biden ’ s promise not to end it .
Most egregious is Siegel ’ s claim that President Trump exemplifies the doctrine of “ hard work , faith , family and autonomy ” —the very middle-class values that provide the framework for American society .
It is hard not to chuckle at these words .
We all know that Donald Trump began with the proverbial silver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business with a few million dollars given to him by his father .
Rather than engaging in actual hard work , Trump was the tabloids ’ favorite New York playboy , making money by ripping off contractors , not paying workers for their labors , and setting up phony business schemes like the fabled Trump University , whose suing clients were paid off with undisclosed sums of money and prohibited from talking about it with nondisclosure agreements .
His business acumen is questionable , as he has declared bankruptcy for his businesses six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ in favor of manufacturing jobs.
” But many of the plants that Trump claimed to have saved have closed .
And the coal mines he said would reopen have not—and coal mines in general have continued to disappear , leaving more miners jobless .
As for Trump ’ s faith , he has provided many examples of his actual unfamiliarity with the Bible , and his lifestyle shows , shall we say , an inclination to not follow middle-class family values .
Someone who respects family does not sleep with a porn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women by their genitals .
Siegel must know that for Trump , it is all about himself .
This is most clear when talking about the one major item Siegel seems to forget : Trump ’ s handling of COVID-19 .
There is no mention in the interview ( as published ) of the fact that Trump ’ s actions since the pandemic started have contributed to the loss of over 220,000 American lives .
How does Siegel countenance Trump ’ s mode of campaigning , in which he holds potential superspreader events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his crowds wear no masks and do not practice social distancing ?
How does Siegel feel about the appointment of Dr. Scott Atlas—a neuroradiologist lacking significant expertise in infectious diseases—to the White House ’ s coronavirus task force , from which platform he has said that people shouldn ’ t wear masks ( “ Masks work ?
NO ” ) and that the United States should adopt a herd immunity approach to fighting the disease—a strategy that would cause hundreds of thousands of new American deaths ?
How does Siegel feel about Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign against the infectious-disease specialist trusted by the American people , Dr. Anthony Fauci , calling him a “ disaster ” and an “ idiot ” ?
Fred Siegel has a long track record of making sharp-eyed criticisms of liberalism and the progressive left .
His critiques of the Obama administration and of President Obama himself raise valid questions for discussion .
Some will see Obama ’ s presidency as flawed , while other will see it as an attempt by a humane and family man to defend the United States as best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgment is not yet in and will take years from his leaving the White House to correctly evaluate whether he was successful or not .
But opposing Obama ’ s presidency , or even being critical of some of Joe Biden ’ s approaches , is simply not a reason that can be put forth to support Donald J. Trump for president .
Nor is opposition to political correctness and the new “ wokeness.
” Opposition to it may be Siegel ’ s “ personal act of disobedience , ” as his interlocuter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , just what that means , since , as far as I know , Siegel has not been censored or come up against the cancel culture .
Besides , it ’ s far from clear how embracing Trump in any way counters wokeness : Is there any reason to think that the rise of woke culture has in any way been diminished by his four years in office ?
Could it be , as Yascha Mounk argues , that supporting Trump and a Trump victory actually encourages it , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left ’ s biggest ally ” ?
I ask Fred , as a friend whom I know to be smart , serious , and a talented writer , to think these points over .
He should do the right thing , and take back his endorsement of Trump , and join those of us who want to keep the United States a decent and free country—one not threatened by a president whose rule will only worsen if he wins re-election .

On the weekend of October 17, the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy interview with political writer and historian Fred Siegel, conducted by a Journal contributor, Tunku Varadarajan. The piece is headlined “An Ex-Liberal Reluctantly Supports Trump”—but Siegel never considered himself a liberal; he viewed himself as a democratic socialist and his support for Trump is anything but “reluctant.” The piece’s subheadline notes how Siegel “came to appreciate the president’s defense of ‘bourgeois values’ against the ‘clerisy.’”
The first question to raise is what did the pro-Trump Journal editors think they would achieve by giving Siegel this important slot in their paper just two weeks before an election? Siegel has a new essay collection out from an obscure press, but that’s a flimsy hook on which to hang this interview. One gets the sense that the Journal wanted to portray someone who purportedly shifted to deciding to vote for Trump in the hope that some readers who are on the fence might be persuaded to do the same. Unlike a conversation with, say, Victor Davis Hanson or Roger Kimball or other avid, longtime supporters of Trump, an interview with Siegel might give such wavering readers the cover they need.
Fred Siegel and I have been friends for decades, going back to the late 1980s and early ’90s when we were both democratic socialists who belonged to the socialist group started by Michael Harrington that eventually became Democratic Socialists of America. In January 1993, Siegel and I both spoke at a major conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by an anti-Communist offshoot of the democratic socialists, Social Democrats U.S.A. Called “Does America Need a Social Democratic Movement?” the conference featured heavy hitters such as William Galston, Seymour Martin Lipset, Will Marshall, Michael Novak, Paul Starr, and Charles Lane. Charles Krauthammer also attended the sessions.
Siegel’s comments then were prescient and help us to understand how he came to be where he is today. He brought up the issue of immigration, at a time when few were talking about it as a problem. Immigration, he said, once produced “social solidarity.” However, at present (remember, the “present” is 1993!), “a new wave of immigration” has “shattered that solidarity.” He explained:
Talking to people who are workers, ordinary middle-class people in New York, I sense a tremendous danger. A combination of the downward pressure on wages exerted by free trade plus some of the downward pressure created by immigration creates a combustible situation in which people feel themselves enormously vulnerable.
In the same manner, another man of the political left made much the same argument in 1998, but on a broader canvas. Richard Rorty wrote in his pathbreaking book Achieving our Country—which did not get a good reception or reviews at the time—that soon in America, unorganized skilled workers and union members would realize that their jobs would be exported. Then the nonsuburban electorate would “decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no long be calling the shots.”
Next, Rorty wrote, many gains made by black Americans and women would disappear. Then “jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. . . . All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Rorty was thinking about Pat Buchanan, Trump’s demagogic predecessor, when he wrote those words. Were Rorty still with us and writing, he would likely be saying the same thing and using the same words to describe and warn about Donald Trump. But unlike Siegel, Rorty remained a social democrat—albeit one who, like Siegel, was in despair because a new cultural left had distanced itself from trade unions and, by turning away from programs to reduce inequality, stressed only group identity politics. He was particularly worried that programs like NAFTA, introduced by Bill Clinton, would harm those who had been traditional Democratic voters.
Rorty showed that one could make such a critique while remaining in the center left. Siegel turned for an answer to exactly the type of demagogue Rorty warned about.
Siegel later came to prominence with two important books, one on the state of American cities, the other a biography of Rudy Giuliani at the height of the mayor’s popularity, which received a rave front-page review by James Traub in the New York Times Book Review. Although a conservative when he wrote these books, Siegel was well within the mainstream, and was a nuanced and sophisticated writer and thinker; hence all the positive reviews he received from liberal writers.
Much of Siegel’s work provided a meaningful and serious critique of what generally is called “liberalism” today—not the liberal philosophy developed in the age of Enlightenment and reason, but the political views of those purporting to be liberals in the postwar American context. His 2014 book The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism has Undermined the Middle Class received positive reviews only in conservative venues. (I reviewed it for National Review.) Toward the end of that book, Siegel developed an account of how the Obama administration especially served the needs of both East and West Coast elites, while the middle classes supposedly served by Democrats suffered greatly.
Still, understanding the failings of liberals is not the same as having a positive case for Trump. In his Journal interview, Siegel gives us three reasons for his support. First, he claims that Trump’s foreign policy has been a success:
Crushing ISIS, pulling us out of the Iran nuclear deal, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, and making fools of those people who insist that the Palestinian issue is at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Today, however, ISIS is anything but destroyed, and is again beginning to pose a threat.
The peace agreements Israel signed with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are a clear success—although the fact that previously hostile Arab states joined Israel due to their fear of Iran’s growing strength is a reminder that Trump’s increasing sanctions against Iran have not produced the regime change the administration obviously hoped for.
Notably absent from Siegel’s list of Trump foreign policy successes is any mention of Venezuela or North Korea. Nicolás Maduro is still head of Venezuela, which is increasing repression of its citizens, many of whom have fled or are attempting to do so. Opposition leader Juan Guaidó has failed in his bid to replace the regime and begin a policy of democratization.
Meanwhile, Trump’s love affair with Kim Jong-un has not led to denuclearization—in fact, Kim’s regime just flaunted a giant new ICBM. The personal diplomacy Trump bragged about turned out to be the careful playing of the president by Kim. North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is now larger than when Trump took office, and the danger of war still exists.
The second—and most disturbing—element in Siegel’s brief for Trump is his admiration for Trump’s purported “ability to withstand a prolonged coup attempt by the Democrats and the media.” Siegel suggests that the investigations of Russia and Trump by the Democrats took place because of their reliance on the Steele dossier, even though the investigations began before that document ever came up. As far as admiring the “impressive” qualities that have allowed Trump to survive politically, well, it’s easy to survive a coup that doesn’t actually exist.
Third, Siegel believes that Trump is a “champion of ‘bourgeois values,’ under threat from the ‘clerisy,’” his word for the belief of the elites who supposedly “despise” such values. Biden, by contrast, is a weak man who will become their “captive,” while waiting in the wings is the dreaded Kamala Harris, who will one day become president and is the “embodiment” of elites who rule over the middle and working classes. Echoing the old words of Jeane Kirkpatrick during Reagan 1984 re-election campaign, Siegel calls Harris a “San Francisco Democrat” who will easily control Biden and institute far-left programs such as the Green New Deal.
Rather than seeing Biden succumb to Harris during the campaign, we have seen her abandon her call for Medicare for all and a single-payer system: She supports the repair and expansion of Obamacare rather than its complete overhaul and the creation of a new government-controlled universal health care system. Similarly, she abandoned her opposition to fracking—a key demand of the left—and now stands by Joe Biden’s promise not to end it.
Most egregious is Siegel’s claim that President Trump exemplifies the doctrine of “hard work, faith, family and autonomy”—the very middle-class values that provide the framework for American society. It is hard not to chuckle at these words. We all know that Donald Trump began with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth, going into business with a few million dollars given to him by his father. Rather than engaging in actual hard work, Trump was the tabloids’ favorite New York playboy, making money by ripping off contractors, not paying workers for their labors, and setting up phony business schemes like the fabled Trump University, whose suing clients were paid off with undisclosed sums of money and prohibited from talking about it with nondisclosure agreements. His business acumen is questionable, as he has declared bankruptcy for his businesses six times.
Siegel says that Trump is “in favor of manufacturing jobs.” But many of the plants that Trump claimed to have saved have closed. And the coal mines he said would reopen have not—and coal mines in general have continued to disappear, leaving more miners jobless.
As for Trump’s faith, he has provided many examples of his actual unfamiliarity with the Bible, and his lifestyle shows, shall we say, an inclination to not follow middle-class family values. Someone who respects family does not sleep with a porn star while married or brag about grabbing women by their genitals.
Siegel must know that for Trump, it is all about himself. This is most clear when talking about the one major item Siegel seems to forget: Trump’s handling of COVID-19. There is no mention in the interview (as published) of the fact that Trump’s actions since the pandemic started have contributed to the loss of over 220,000 American lives.
How does Siegel countenance Trump’s mode of campaigning, in which he holds potential superspreader events once or twice a day, where his crowds wear few masks and do not practice social distancing?
How does Siegel feel about the appointment of Dr. Scott Atlas—a neuroradiologist lacking significant expertise in infectious diseases—to the White House’s coronavirus task force, from which platform he has said that people shouldn’t wear masks (“Masks work? NO”) and that the United States should adopt a herd immunity approach to fighting the disease—a strategy that would cause hundreds of thousands of new American deaths?
How does Siegel feel about Trump playing to his base and waging a campaign against the infectious-disease specialist trusted by the American people, Dr. Anthony Fauci, calling him a “disaster” and an “idiot”?
Fred Siegel has a long track record of making sharp-eyed criticisms of liberalism and the progressive left. His critiques of the Obama administration and of President Obama himself raise valid questions for discussion. Some will see Obama’s presidency as flawed, while other will see it as an attempt by a humane and family man to defend the United States as best as he thought possible. The final judgment is not yet in and will take years from his leaving the White House to correctly evaluate whether he was successful or not.
But opposing Obama’s presidency, or even being critical of some of Joe Biden’s approaches, is simply not a reason that can be put forth to support Donald J. Trump for president.
Nor is opposition to political correctness and the new “wokeness.” Opposition to it may be Siegel’s “personal act of disobedience,” as his interlocuter Varadarajan concludes. I am not sure, however, just what that means, since, as far as I know, Siegel has not been censored or come up against the cancel culture. Besides, it’s far from clear how embracing Trump in any way counters wokeness: Is there any reason to think that the rise of woke culture has been diminished by his four years in office? Could it be, as Yascha Mounk argues, that supporting Trump and a Trump victory actually encourages it, and that “Trump himself has been the far left’s biggest ally”?
I ask Fred, as a friend whom I know to be smart, serious, and a talented writer, to think these points over. He should do the right thing, and take back his endorsement of Trump, and join those of us who want to keep the United States a decent and free country—one not threatened by a president whose rule will only worsen if he wins re-election.


thebulwark--2020-10-27--When the QAnon Apocalypse Doesn’t Come

When the QAnon Apocalypse Doesn’t Come

The countdown is set , the events line up , the end times are near—you are all prepared for the apocalypse .
And then you wait .
And wait .
And time passes , events go by , and the apocalypse doesn ’ t come .
The teachers disappear , the scriptures are pondered , and the surviving believers are forced to deal with the inevitable question : What now ?
This scenario has play out countless times—so many apocalyptic movements have come and gone over the centuries , be it the White Lotus Rebellion or the First Crusade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ISIS or Aum Shinrikyo , or , in the United States and particularly relevant to the upcoming election , QAnon .
As broad as QAnon is , the central conspiracy focuses on the idea that the United States is being run by a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who are simultaneously running a global child sex-trafficking operation .
For the QAnon adherents , President Trump takes on the role of their messiah , and his prophet is a supposed high-ranking government official who posts pseudo-prophecy on 4chan and 8chan under the pen name “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely absurd , good : It is .
But that nonsensical core is fleshed out by progressively more bizarre and dangerous theories on 4chan , 8chan , YouTube , Facebook , and other sites .
The predictions and promises of Q are consistently wrong—don ’ t forget , this is all completely false—yet from its start in 2017 it has moved from fringe internet conspiracy to mainstream Trumpian belief , embraced by the president and supported by dozens of candidates for state and federal office .
In a poll conducted in mid-October , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who described themselves as supporters of Donald Trump said they believe in at least some aspect of QAnon .
This is bad enough .
But QAnon is not a new phenomenon—it ’ s the recycling of a dozen old tropes , some of which go back to the Middle Ages or earlier , and the vast majority of them are rooted in anti-Semitism .
QAnon is an evolution of or fellow traveler with “ Pizzagate , ” a conspiracy theory based on a combination of medieval blood libel ideas and the WikiLeaks spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which contained , according to the conspiracy , codes for a Democratic pedophile ring run out of the basement of a pizza joint in Washington , D.C .
These conspiracy theories , which were propagated by fringe media like InfoWars and online trolls like Jack Posobiec , are not harmless : Pizzagate led to multiple attacks on that pizza parlor .
One shooter , who was surprised to learn that the pizza place doesn ’ t even have a basement , was sentenced to four years in prison .
The evolution from Pizzagate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ furniture company , have now become an obsession with the notion of “ adrenochrome , ” a fantasy drug that QAnoners believe Hollywood celebrities are harvesting from children .
All of these trace back to medieval anti-Semitic conspiracies , with new buzzwords— “ cosmopolitan elites , ” “ globalists , ” or “ George Soros ” —in the place of the more immediately recognizable “ Jews.
” The QAnoners ’ apocalypse , unsurprisingly , is one of political partisan violence , culminating in “ The Storm , ” when all of the so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay , including a variety of Democratic politicians , celebrities , and public servants numbering in the thousands , and then public executions and the works .
This will lead to some sort of utopian aftermath when Trump will bring about the perfect society—though what form that would take is never described .
This rhetoric is apocalyptic in nature and approaches the kind of ideological fervor associated with religious movements—but the kind of religious movements that spawn terrorist organizations .
The QAnon “ digital soldier ” oath does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Storm is , of course , nonsense like the rest of QAnon , and Donald Trump will eventually cease to be president—preferably sooner rather than later .
Which brings us back to the question : When the apocalypse fails , what will become of QAnon ?
Historians are not prognosticators , and the past and present are not cyclical , but there are plenty of examples we can look at of apocalyptic movements that have failed .
Let ’ s examine three : the First Crusade , the Millerites , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian movements , the crusades are one of the most misrepresented and contemporarily fascinating .
Like any other mass movement , the crusaders had a range of motivations ; one of those , however , was apocalypticism , and a very active approach to it : Groups that not only believed the End Times were near but wanted to work to push them into being .
Within the First Crusade , a number of contingents believed they were enacting apocalyptic prophecies .
At least one of the accounts of Pope Urban II ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apocalypticism ; a contingent launched pogroms across the Rhineland as part of the apocalyptic mission ; one of the participants wrapped the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 in the language of Revelation ; and in the aftermath , the most popular chronicle of the First Crusade posited that the prophecies of the End Times had been fulfilled .
The apocalypse , of course , did not arrive , but the link between crusading and apocalypticism grew throughout the twelfth century and carried on through the voyages of Christopher Columbus .
The inability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence did not stop them from repeating the attempt until crusading ended with the dissolving of the Knights of Malta as a military order by Napoleon in 1798 .
Not all apocalyptic movements are violent , of course .
The Millerites , disciples of William Miller , believed that , via the study of the book of Daniel , they had discovered the key to when Jesus would return to Earth .
Coming out the Second Great Awakening , the Millerite movement was one of a number of groups refocusing their attention on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miller started preaching his belief that Jesus would soon return , not only holding camp meetings—which , by the early 1840s , had attracted approximately a million total attendees ( though only a fraction believed Miller ) —but also by harnessing the high-speed printing presses of the day to churn out pamphlets , newsletters , newspapers , and colored charts explaining Miller ’ s system .
These , alongside charismatic aides , helped turn the movement into a mass phenomenon .
The core believers may have numbered somewhere in the 50-100,000 range , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but with adherents across the United States and Canada .
Miller originally suggested that the Second Coming would arrive by March 1844 .
When that month passed , he pushed back to April before settling on a later , specific date : October 22 , 1844 .
As the day approached , some Millerties sold their earthly possessions ; others , clad in white robes , climbed high mountains near their homes to be closer to heaven .
Of course , the day came and went , and became known as the Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also failed , Miller ’ s followers departed , though a core of them would go on to join the Adventist Church , which believed that the date was right , but the event wrong—instead of an Earthly return , 1844 marked the beginning of the final phase of Jesus ’ mission in heaven .
The Seventh-day Adventists , though small in number , continue to exist and thrive , and are among the most racially and ethnically diverse American religious groups today .
An offshoot of the Adventists , called the Davidian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the Davidians were more apocalyptic , believing in a future , non-Jesus Messiah , and convinced that the Davidians would bring about via a new Davidic kingdom in the imminent apocalypse .
An offshoot of that offshoot would become tragically infamous : The Branch Davidians formed when the Davidians ’ founder , Victor Houteff , died in 1955 and one of his followers , Benjamin Roden , claimed to be hearing messages from God .
The Branch Davidians believed not only in the imminent apocalypse and the ability to bring it about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their leaders .
A cult of personality formed around David Koresh—born Vernon Howell , who changed his name in 1990 to commemorate the biblical figures King David and Cyrus , emperor of Persia .
The tragedy at the Mt .
Carmel ranch near Waco , Texas—the firefight of February 28 , 1993 , the 55-day siege , and the fire ending in the death of 74 people in the compound—all become divorced from the genuine apocalyptic beliefs of the church .
Not all members of the church were in the compound when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ east of Waco to this day , waiting for the end times .
The point of looking at these three examples it to ponder what QAnon will become , when even more cogs of its conspiracy machine break down .
There are already new conspiracies being birthed , and some of the more bizarre prophecies keep missing their magical dates .
Conspiracy theories have been interwoven with American politics from the earliest days , and while QAnon fits in that long and strange tradition , it is different from what came before in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vast national reach and a much more rapidly churning , proliferating cloud of conspiracies , thanks to the internet ; and for many of the followers there seems to be a kind of postmodern ironic enjoyment that lets them flexibly accept the latest ridiculous prediction—like the idea that John F. Kennedy Jr. faked his death and will return as Trump ’ s running mate—and then move on with a wink when it flops .
What will become of its adherents when QAnon burns out ?
History suggests that it will not simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , magician and debunker of paranormal claims , put it , “ the resilience of the duped ” is incredibly strong .
Successive crusades continued their violent attempts to bring about the apocalypse for centuries .
Indeed , the crusades continue to inspire violence , from Anders Breivik in Norway in 2011 to the Christchurch mosque shooter and his crusades-and-white-supremacist reference-laden rifle to Donald Trump Jr. ’ s Crusader rifle .
The Great Disappointment gave birth to a successor church that reinterpreted it , that would later have splinter groups that tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death of the core of the Branch Davidians and their leader , that small sect survives .
The most dire threat is that the death of the apocalyptic movement may become fodder for domestic terrorism—Timothy McVeigh , after all , went to Waco to observe the siege , and McVeigh and Nichols blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 on the second anniversary of the Waco fire .
QAnon may die , but its poisonous legacy is here to stay , and in a time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be deadly .
Its adherents can not simply be brought back out of the cold until they reject the conspiracy , its beliefs , and its motives—history has shown us far too many examples of how apocalyptic movements refuse to die .

The countdown is set, the events line up, the end times are near—you are all prepared for the apocalypse. And then you wait. And wait. And time passes, events go by, and the apocalypse doesn’t come. The teachers disappear, the scriptures are pondered, and the surviving believers are forced to deal with the inevitable question: What now?
This scenario has play out countless times—so many apocalyptic movements have come and gone over the centuries, be it the White Lotus Rebellion or the First Crusade, the Millerites or the Branch Davidians, ISIS or Aum Shinrikyo, or, in the United States and particularly relevant to the upcoming election, QAnon.
As broad as QAnon is, the central conspiracy focuses on the idea that the United States is being run by a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who are simultaneously running a global child sex-trafficking operation. For the QAnon adherents, President Trump takes on the role of their messiah, and his prophet is a supposed high-ranking government official who posts pseudo-prophecy on 4chan and 8chan under the pen name “Q.”
If this strikes you as completely absurd, good: It is. But that nonsensical core is fleshed out by progressively more bizarre and dangerous theories on 4chan, 8chan, YouTube, Facebook, and other sites. The predictions and promises of Q are consistently wrong—don’t forget, this is all completely false—yet from its start in 2017 it has moved from fringe internet conspiracy to mainstream Trumpian belief, embraced by the president and supported by dozens of candidates for state and federal office. In a poll conducted in mid-October, more than 50 percent of the respondents who described themselves as supporters of Donald Trump said they believe in at least some aspect of QAnon.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
This is bad enough. But QAnon is not a new phenomenon—it’s the recycling of a dozen old tropes, some of which go back to the Middle Ages or earlier, and the vast majority of them are rooted in anti-Semitism. QAnon is an evolution of or fellow traveler with “Pizzagate,” a conspiracy theory based on a combination of medieval blood libel ideas and the WikiLeaks spread of John Podesta’s emails, which contained, according to the conspiracy, codes for a Democratic pedophile ring run out of the basement of a pizza joint in Washington, D.C. These conspiracy theories, which were propagated by fringe media like InfoWars and online trolls like Jack Posobiec, are not harmless: Pizzagate led to multiple attacks on that pizza parlor. One shooter, who was surprised to learn that the pizza place doesn’t even have a basement, was sentenced to four years in prison.
The evolution from Pizzagate into child-trafficking conspiracies around Wayfair, a furniture company, have now become an obsession with the notion of “adrenochrome,” a fantasy drug that QAnoners believe Hollywood celebrities are harvesting from children. All of these trace back to medieval anti-Semitic conspiracies, with new buzzwords—“cosmopolitan elites,” “globalists,” or “George Soros”—in the place of the more immediately recognizable “Jews.”
The QAnoners’ apocalypse, unsurprisingly, is one of political partisan violence, culminating in “The Storm,” when all of the so-called “deep state leaders” will be arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay, including a variety of Democratic politicians, celebrities, and public servants numbering in the thousands, and then public executions and the works. This will lead to some sort of utopian aftermath when Trump will bring about the perfect society—though what form that would take is never described. This rhetoric is apocalyptic in nature and approaches the kind of ideological fervor associated with religious movements—but the kind of religious movements that spawn terrorist organizations. The QAnon “digital soldier” oath does nothing to detract from that comparison.
The Storm is, of course, nonsense like the rest of QAnon, and Donald Trump will eventually cease to be president. Which brings us back to the question: When the apocalypse fails, what will become of QAnon?
Historians are not prognosticators, and the past and present are not cyclical, but there are plenty of examples we can look at of apocalyptic movements that have failed. Let’s examine three: the First Crusade, the Millerites, and the Branch Davidians.
In terms of violent Christian movements, the crusades are one of the most misrepresented and contemporarily fascinating. Like any other mass movement, the crusaders had a range of motivations; one of those, however, was apocalypticism, and a very active approach to it: Groups that not only believed the End Times were near but wanted to work to push them into being. Within the First Crusade, a number of contingents believed they were enacting apocalyptic prophecies. At least one of the accounts of Pope Urban II’s sermon launching the crusade focuses on apocalypticism; a contingent launched pogroms across the Rhineland as part of the apocalyptic mission; one of the participants wrapped the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 in the language of Revelation; and in the aftermath, the most popular chronicle of the First Crusade posited that the prophecies of the End Times had been fulfilled.
The apocalypse, of course, did not arrive, but the link between crusading and apocalypticism grew throughout the twelfth century and carried on through the voyages of Christopher Columbus. The inability of the crusaders to enact the apocalypse through violence did not stop them from repeating the attempt until crusading ended with the dissolving of the Knights of Malta as a military order by Napoleon in 1798.
Not all apocalyptic movements are violent, of course. The Millerites, disciples of William Miller, believed that, via the study of the book of Daniel, they had discovered the key to when Jesus would return to Earth. Coming out the Second Great Awakening, the Millerite movement was one of a number of groups refocusing their attention on the impending apocalypse. In the 1830s Miller started preaching his belief that Jesus would soon return, not only holding camp meetings—which, by the early 1840s, had attracted approximately a million total attendees (though only a fraction believed Miller)—but also by harnessing the high-speed printing presses of the day to churn out pamphlets, newsletters, newspapers, and colored charts explaining Miller’s system. These, alongside charismatic aides, helped turn the movement into a mass phenomenon. The core believers may have numbered somewhere in the 50-100,000 range, primarily in New England and New York but with adherents across the United States and Canada.
Miller originally suggested that the Second Coming would arrive by March 1844. When that month passed, he pushed back to April before settling on a later, specific date: October 22, 1844. As the day approached, some Millerties sold their earthly possessions; others, clad in white robes, climbed high mountains near their homes to be closer to heaven. Of course, the day came and went, and became known as the Great Disappointment. When the hurriedly announced recalculation also failed, Miller’s followers departed, though a core of them would go on to join the Adventist Church, which believed that the date was right, but the event wrong—instead of an Earthly return, 1844 marked the beginning of the final phase of Jesus’ mission in heaven. The Seventh-day Adventists, though small in number, continue to exist and thrive, and are among the most racially and ethnically diverse American religious groups today.
An offshoot of the Adventists, called the Davidian Adventists, was formed in the 1930s; the Davidians were more apocalyptic, believing in a future, non-Jesus Messiah, and convinced that the Davidians would bring about via a new Davidic kingdom in the imminent apocalypse. An offshoot of that offshoot would become tragically infamous: The Branch Davidians formed when the Davidians’ founder, Victor Houteff, died in 1955 and one of his followers, Benjamin Roden, claimed to be hearing messages from God. The Branch Davidians believed not only in the imminent apocalypse and the ability to bring it about, but in the prophetic gifts of their leaders. A cult of personality formed around David Koresh—born Vernon Howell, who changed his name in 1990 to commemorate the biblical figures King David and Cyrus, emperor of Persia. The tragedy at the Mt. Carmel ranch near Waco, Texas—the firefight of February 28, 1993, the 55-day siege, and the fire ending in the death of 74 people in the compound—all become divorced from the genuine apocalyptic beliefs of the church. Not all members of the church were in the compound when it burned, and a congregation still lives east of Waco to this day, waiting for the end times.
The point of looking at these three examples it to ponder what QAnon will become, when even more cogs of its conspiracy machine break down. There are already new conspiracies being birthed, and some of the more bizarre prophecies keep missing their magical dates.
Conspiracy theories have been interwoven with American politics from the earliest days, and while QAnon fits in that long and strange tradition, it is different from what came before in at least three ways: It has a vast national reach and a much more rapidly churning, proliferating cloud of conspiracies, thanks to the internet; and for many of the followers there seems to be a kind of postmodern ironic enjoyment that lets them flexibly accept the latest ridiculous prediction—like the idea that John F. Kennedy Jr. faked his death and will return as Trump’s running mate—and then move on with a wink when it flops.
What will become of its adherents when QAnon burns out? History suggests that it will not simply disappear. As the late James Randi, magician and debunker of paranormal claims, put it, “the resilience of the duped” is incredibly strong. Successive crusades continued their violent attempts to bring about the apocalypse for centuries. Indeed, the crusades continue to inspire violence, from Anders Breivik in Norway in 2011 to the Christchurch mosque shooter and his crusades-and-white-supremacist reference-laden rifle to Donald Trump Jr.’s Crusader rifle. The Great Disappointment gave birth to a successor church that reinterpreted it, that would later have splinter groups that tried to bring about the apocalypse. Even after the death of the core of the Branch Davidians and their leader, that small sect survives.
The most dire threat is that the death of the apocalyptic movement may become fodder for domestic terrorism—Timothy McVeigh, after all, went to Waco to observe the siege, and McVeigh and Nichols blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 on the second anniversary of the Waco fire.
QAnon may die, but its poisonous legacy is here to stay, and in a time of increased threat of right-wing militias, may be deadly. Its adherents cannot simply be brought back out of the cold until they reject the conspiracy, its beliefs, and its motives—history has shown us far too many examples of how apocalyptic movements refuse to die.


thebulwark--2020-10-28--The Desperate Hypocrisy of the Trump Legal Clean-Up Crew

On October 20 , President Trump ’ s chief of staff declared , under oath , that the president didn ’ t actually mean the things he said in a tweet on October 6 about having declassified a bunch of Russia investigation documents .
Here is the Trump tweet in question : In the affidavit , Mark Meadows declared that Trump ’ s “ statements were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification or release of any particular documents , including the FD-302 reports of witness interviews prepared by ” the FBI for Special Counsel Robert Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted on Twitter , this is the same president who , in a lawsuit in which the Justice Department intervened , recently argued in federal court that Trump can not be sued over statements he made about a woman who accused him of rape because he was acting in his “ official capacity ” when he made them .
E. Jean Carroll claims that Trump raped her in a department-store dressing room many years ago , while Trump was a private citizen .
In response to Carroll ’ s lawsuit filed last November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Hill that he had ever met her , accused her of “ totally lying , ” and stated that she was “ not my type.
” Yesterday , a federal judge smacked down the DOJ ’ s attempt to represent Trump in Carroll ’ s defamation suit .
The DOJ had claimed that Trump ’ s public denial had “ addressed matters relating to his fitness for office as part of an official White House response to press inquiries.
” The state court judge assigned to the case rejected Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from civil suit as president .
( That argument had been roundly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton v .
Jones . )
DOJ removed the case from state court to federal court , arguing that it involves a question of federal law .
In his ruling yesterday , District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote that Under the relevant statutes , President Trump is not an “ employee of the Government ” and was not “ acting within the scope of his office or employment , ” and so , ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over his defense in the Carroll lawsuit .
( No confirmation yet on whether DOJ will appeal , but the safe money would bet that it will . )
In arguing that it should take over Trump ’ s defense in the Carroll case , DOJ emphasized that , “ given the president ’ s position in our constitutional structure , his role in communicating with the public is especially significant.
” Which brings us back to his tweets about declassifying documents related to the Mueller investigation .
Last year , BuzzFeed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FOIA ) lawsuits seeking access to the typewritten narratives of witness interviews—the FBI “ 302s ” —conducted by Robert Mueller ’ s team .
Approximately 4,000 pages have been released thus far , but with heavy redactions .
DOJ has claimed that the volume of records requested could top 18 billion pages .
Following Trump ’ s October 6 tweet , BuzzFeed News filed an emergency motion seeking access to thousands of pages of additional Mueller-related documents before the November 3 voting deadline on the grounds that Trump ’ s tweets waived any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FOIA .
A federal judge ordered DOJ to “ confer with the White House ” and report back on its “ official position.
” Meadows ’ s affidavit disavowed that the president ’ s tweets were self-executing declassification orders , claiming instead that “ the President ’ s statements related to the authorization he had provided the Attorney General to declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities relating to the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters.
” In its opposition papers to BuzzFeed ’ s emergency motion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential memorandum allowing Attorney General Bill Barr to declassify information on May 23 , 2019 , but that “ the President ’ s Twitter statements do not require the declassification of any particular documents ” ( emphasis added ) .
In other words , Barr—not the president—appears to have ultimate declassification authority here , according to DOJ .
To be clear , DOJ did not dispute that the president has broad declassification authority in general , but argued that “ the Twitter statements .
.
.
do not indicate that the President was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information.
” Let ’ s unpack this , in all its hypocritical splendor : Denying a rape twenty years ago is per se an official act because rape bears on Trump ’ s constitutional fitness for office ( true ) , but a public statement from the president confirming the declassification of previously classified documents is not an official act unless the public statement ( a ) expressly indicates that the president is exercising his Article II authority as commander-in-chief over classified material , and ( b ) expressly identifies the declassified documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the governing Executive Order—signed by President Obama—generally says about classification and declassification : “ The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by .
.
.
the President and the Vice President , ” along with agency heads and other officials , including those “ designated by the President ” ( e.g.
, Bill Barr ) .
“ Information shall be declassified or downgraded by .
.
.
the official who authorized the original classification , if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official , ” which presumably includes the president himself .
As far back as 2017 , moreover , then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced at a press briefing that Trump ’ s tweets calling his travel ban a “ TRAVEL BAN ” count as official policy because Trump “ is the President of the United States , so they ’ re considered official statements by the President of the United States.
” Spicer ’ s successor reaffirmed that stance a few months later .
Obviously , Trump irresponsibly mistweeted when he tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Mueller ’ s investigation into Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 election .
Once again , his recklessness potentially compromised national security and required the government ’ s lawyers to clean up after him in court by effectively footnoting the law governing declassification .
But what ’ s galling is the hypocrisy of seeking—at the same time—to trounce Carroll ’ s private defamation suit under the guise of the Trump ’ s constitutional presidential prerogatives .
Trump ’ s tweets should operate to expose him to , not selectively protect him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

On October 20, President Trump’s chief of staff declared, under oath, that the president didn’t actually mean the things he said in a tweet on October 6 about having declassified a bunch of Russia investigation documents. Here is the Trump tweet in question:
All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago. Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly, especially since it is perhaps the biggest political crime in the history of our Country. Act!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2020
In an affidavit, Mark Meadows declared that Trump’s “statements were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification or release of any particular documents, including the FD-302 reports of witness interviews prepared by” the FBI for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
As CNN legal analyst Elliott Williams noted on Twitter, this is the same president who, in a lawsuit in which the Justice Department intervened, recently argued in federal court that Trump cannot be sued over statements he made about a woman who accused him of rape because he was acting in his “official capacity” when he made them. E. Jean Carroll claims that Trump raped her in a department-store dressing room many years ago, while Trump was a private citizen. In response to Carroll’s claims, Trump denied in an interview with The Hill that he had ever met her, accused her of “totally lying,” and stated that she was “not my type.”
Yesterday, a federal judge smacked down DOJ’s attempt to represent Trump in Carroll’s subsequent defamation suit. DOJ had claimed that Trump’s public denial had “addressed matters relating to his fitness for office as part of an official White House response to press inquiries.” The state court judge assigned to the case rejected Trump’s argument—through private counsel—that he was accordingly immune from civil suit as president. (That argument had been roundly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones.) DOJ removed the case from state court to federal court, arguing that it involves a question of federal law. In his ruling yesterday, District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote that
President Trump’s comments [about Carroll] concerned media reports about an alleged sexual assault that took place more than twenty years before he took office. Neither the media reports nor the underlying allegations have any relationship to his official duties.
Under the relevant statutes, President Trump is not an “employee of the Government” and was not “acting within the scope of his office or employment,” and so, ruled Judge Kaplan, DOJ cannot take over his defense in the Carroll lawsuit. (No confirmation yet on whether DOJ will appeal, but the safe money would bet that it will.)
In arguing that it should take over Trump’s defense in the Carroll case, DOJ emphasized that, “given the president’s position in our constitutional structure, his role in communicating with the public is especially significant.”
Which brings us back to his tweets about declassifying documents related to the Mueller investigation.
Last year, BuzzFeed and CNN filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits seeking access to the typewritten narratives of witness interviews—the FBI “302s”—conducted by Robert Mueller’s team. Approximately 4,000 pages have been released thus far, but with heavy redactions. DOJ has claimed that the volume of records requested could top 18 billion pages.
Following Trump’s October 6 tweet, BuzzFeed News filed an emergency motion seeking access to thousands of pages of additional Mueller-related documents before the November 3 voting deadline on the grounds that Trump’s tweets waived any legal basis for keeping them confidential under FOIA. A federal judge ordered DOJ to “confer with the White House” and report back on its “official position.”
Meadows’s affidavit disavowed that the president’s tweets were self-executing declassification orders, claiming instead that “the President’s statements related to the authorization he had provided the Attorney General to declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities relating to the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters.” In its opposition papers to BuzzFeed’s emergency motion, DOJ clarified that Trump had issued a presidential memorandum allowing Attorney General Bill Barr to declassify information on May 23, 2019, but that “the President’s Twitter statements do not require the declassification of any particular documents” (emphasis added).
In other words, Barr—not the president—appears to have ultimate declassification authority here, according to DOJ.
To be clear, DOJ did not dispute that the president has broad declassification authority in general, but argued that “the Twitter statements . . . do not indicate that the President was exercising his Constitutional authority to declassify specific information.”
Let’s unpack this, in all its hypocritical splendor: Denying a rape twenty years ago is per se an official act because rape bears on Trump’s constitutional fitness for office (true), but a public statement from the president confirming the declassification of previously classified documents is not an official act unless the public statement (a) expressly indicates that the president is exercising his Article II authority as commander-in-chief over classified material, and (b) expressly identifies the declassified documents in the tweet.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Here’s what the governing Executive Order—signed by President Obama—generally says about classification and declassification: “The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by . . . the President and the Vice President,” along with agency heads and other officials, including those “designated by the President” (e.g., Bill Barr). “Information shall be declassified or downgraded by . . . the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority,” or “a supervisory official,” which presumably includes the president himself.
As far back as 2017, moreover, then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced at a press briefing that Trump’s tweets calling his travel ban a “TRAVEL BAN” count as official policy because Trump “is the President of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the President of the United States.” Spicer’s successor reaffirmed that stance a few months later.
Obviously, Trump irresponsibly mistweeted when he said that he had declassified the materials relating to Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Once again, his recklessness potentially compromised national security and required the government’s lawyers to clean up after him in court by effectively footnoting the law governing declassification. But what’s galling is the hypocrisy of seeking—at the same time—to trounce Carroll’s private defamation suit under the guise of the Trump’s constitutional presidential prerogatives.
Trump’s tweets should operate to expose him to, not selectively protect him from, the glare of public scrutiny.


thebulwark--2020-10-28--Where Do We Go from Here?

Where Do We Go from Here?

Of all the artifacts of the Trump years—the COVID death toll ; the introduction of phrases like “ grab ’ em by the pussy ” into the common lexicon ; the rise of Twitter as a substitute for the White House press office—the most baffling might be the rise of Sarah Cooper .
If you ’ re on social media , you ’ ll recognize her : She ’ s the lady who lip syncs Trump speeches while making a series of silly faces .
That ’ s .
.
.it .
That ’ s what she does .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given late-night hosting gigs and her own Netflix special .
She silently mouths what the president says .
She makes funny faces while doing it .
She sometimes does the same shtick for other political figures .
She racks up retweets .
She shows up in my feed .
She ’ s .
Always .
In .
My .
Feed .
That last part is probably my fault , given that I follow a bunch of Boomers .
( Love you guys , but come on . )
And I ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she ’ s written books and had a thriving standup career before all of this .
That she ’ s not Gen X Andy Borowitz but actually quite clever and merely riding her wave to fame and fortune .
It ’ s unfair to harp on this ; sexist perhaps , even .
And yet .
You see clips like this and you wonder what we ’ ve done to deserve our fate : All of which is to say that I turned on her new Netflix special—a parody of a Today-style @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the title of which , we learn from a narrator , is driving her completely insane , as everything is NOT fine—in the worst possible mindset : I , a confirmed hater , switched it on right after being primed to hate by having seen a very hateable thing from the show .
But .
.
.
it wasn ’ t terrible !
Well , in one way , it was terrible : the lip-syncing , my God .
It ’ s a running motif .
Sarah Cooper pretending to be Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretending to be Trump-world women as dolls being sold by a QAnon-inspired QVC ; Sarah Cooper pretending to be Trump while Helen Mirren pretends to be Billy Bush .
And I understand that , like Gallagher , she can ’ t just not do her shtick—she has to give the people the hits , that ’ s what they ’ re here for ; if she doesn ’ t smash the watermelon , they ’ re going to be annoyed—but it ’ s tremendously tiresome , a meme bereft of jokes or comic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insight into Trump ’ s braindead patter , you ’ re better off checking out James Austin Johnson . )
But the rest of Everything ’ s Fine absolutely nails the crushing absurdity of our times .
From Fred Armisen ’ s increasingly outlandish coronavirus protection gear to the rise of prominence of the pillow guy ( played here by Jon Hamm , who desperately wants us to tell him he ’ s funny ) to the wild weather reports from Maya Rudolph to Megan Thee Stallion acting as a sort of stay-at-home-self-help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not every bit lands ( a Ken Burns-style documentary on “ Karens ” narrated by Whoopi Goldberg drags , even at a brief 70-some seconds ) but enough does to recreate the sense that we ’ re living through a movie dystopia .
At one point , the literal devil takes eight years of “ plot points ” and shoves them all into 2020 , murder hornets bumping up against bat diseases .
It ’ s a common Twitter joke ( much of the humor here feels Very Online ) , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds comes from fleeing her studio , getting out into the sunlight .
And , again , there ’ s a palpable way in which this is incredibly true : One trap that news junkies fall into is consuming too much .
Allowing ourselves to get overwhelmed .
At a certain point , you need to just shut it off and go outside .
( Of course , what you find out there might not be as much of a relief as you want . )
If you sit in your NYC apartment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re going to drive yourself a little—okay , very—nuts .
Cooper ’ s special imagines Trump and the insanities he ’ s brought to the fore—QAnon and the neverending cycle of lockdown and death and lockdown—as all-encompassing , a hundred-headed Hydra .
An Evening with Tim Heidecker , meanwhile , countenances Trump as just a bump in the road .
Heidecker ’ s special , on YouTube now , is a send-up of stand-up , a sort of anti-comedy comedy routine .
He comes out and can ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bumbling with it for so long that the joke transforms from funny to not funny and back to funny again .
As he gets going , the bits are ur-hack , the primal form of hackery : “ Always flying from here to there , and I always end up sort of in the last position , when flying , you know , you get to the airport and they say , you show them your ID and they say ‘ uh , too bad sir , you ’ re in zone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funny face ] I say ‘ at least I ’ m not in the Twilight Zone.
’ [ mugging for laughs ] .
” He riffs on the names of people in the audience , doing terrible improv ; he riffs on his wife ( “ I call her the nag , HAHA ” ) ; he riffs on vegan food .
And then he gets to Trump .
And you can feel a subtle shift in the audience , as if they expect this to be the meat of the show , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little more serious .
But he does the same thing he ’ s been doing—botching a “ Russia , Russia , Russia !
” joke—before moving on to terrible impressions of movie stars and a bit on Coke vs. Pepsi .
Cooper and Heidecker are doing similar things in these two specials .
Sure , Heidecker ’ s a bit more aggressively and intentionally unfunny ; Cooper ’ s a bit more topical .
But they ’ re both deconstructing common entertainments and reveling in their absurdity in order to reveal the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end , Heidecker ’ s vision is a more comforting one despite its more aggressively anti-viewer stance , suggesting as it does that Trump is fodder for hack laughs , not worth obsessing over .
You could plug just about any presidency into that portion of the show and it would change very little ; when he ’ s gone , he ’ s gone .

Of all the artifacts of the Trump years—the COVID death toll; the introduction of phrases like “grab ’em by the pussy” into the common lexicon; the rise of Twitter as a substitute for the White House press office—the most baffling might be the rise of Sarah Cooper.
If you’re on social media, you’ll recognize her: She’s the lady who lip syncs Trump speeches while making a series of silly faces. That’s . . .it. That’s what she does. It’s why she’s been given late-night hosting gigs and her own Netflix special. She silently mouths what the president says. She makes funny faces while doing it. She sometimes does the same shtick for other political figures. She racks up retweets. She shows up in my feed.
She’s. Always. In. My. Feed.
That last part is probably my fault, given that I follow a bunch of Boomers. (Love you guys, but come on.) And I’ve been assured that this summation is unfair, that she’s written books and had a thriving standup career before all of this. That she’s not Gen X Andy Borowitz but actually quite clever and merely riding her wave to fame and fortune. It’s unfair to harp on this; sexist perhaps, even.
And yet. You see clips like this and you wonder what we’ve done to deserve our fate:
I’m old enough to remember when Donald Trump was supposed to be good for comedy. pic.twitter.com/z6dr5I3ukc — Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) October 27, 2020
All of which is to say that I turned on her new Netflix special—a parody of a Today-style morning show called Everything’s Fine, the title of which, we learn from a narrator, is driving her completely insane, as everything is NOT fine—in the worst possible mindset: I, a confirmed hater, switched it on right after being primed to hate by having seen a very hateable thing from the show.
But . . . it wasn’t terrible! Well, in one way, it was terrible: the lip-syncing, my God. It’s a running motif. Sarah Cooper pretending to be Trump on a golf course; Sarah Cooper pretending to be Trump-world women as dolls being sold by a QAnon-inspired QVC; Sarah Cooper pretending to be Trump while Helen Mirren pretends to be Billy Bush. And I understand that, like Gallagher, she can’t just not do her shtick—she has to give the people the hits, that’s what they’re here for; if she doesn’t smash the watermelon, they’re going to be annoyed—but it’s tremendously tiresome, a meme bereft of jokes or comic insight. (If you want comic insight into Trump’s braindead patter, you’re better off checking out James Austin Johnson.)
But the rest of Everything’s Fine absolutely nails the crushing absurdity of our times. From Fred Armisen’s increasingly outlandish coronavirus protection gear to the rise of prominence of the pillow guy (played here by Jon Hamm, who desperately wants us to tell him he’s funny) to the wild weather reports from Maya Rudolph to Megan Thee Stallion acting as a sort of stay-at-home-self-help guru, it’s largely gold. Not every bit lands (a Ken Burns-style documentary on “Karens” narrated by Whoopi Goldberg drags, even at a brief 70-some seconds) but enough does to recreate the sense that we’re living through a movie dystopia. At one point, the literal devil takes eight years of “plot points” and shoves them all into 2020, murder hornets bumping up against bat diseases. It’s a common Twitter joke (much of the humor here feels Very Online), but it works.
The only relief Cooper finds comes from fleeing her studio, getting out into the sunlight. And, again, there’s a palpable way in which this is incredibly true: One trap that news junkies fall into is consuming too much. Allowing ourselves to get overwhelmed. At a certain point, you need to just shut it off and go outside. (Of course, what you find out there might not be as much of a relief as you want.) If you sit in your NYC apartment foaming about the state of the world, you’re going to drive yourself a little—okay, very—nuts.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Cooper’s special imagines Trump and the insanities he’s brought to the fore—QAnon and the neverending cycle of lockdown and death and lockdown—as all-encompassing, a hundred-headed Hydra. An Evening with Tim Heidecker, meanwhile, countenances Trump as just a bump in the road.
Heidecker’s special, on YouTube now, is a send-up of stand-up, a sort of anti-comedy comedy routine. He comes out and can’t get the microphone stand to work, stumbling and bumbling with it for so long that the joke transforms from funny to not funny and back to funny again. As he gets going, the bits are ur-hack, the primal form of hackery: “Always flying from here to there, and I always end up sort of in the last position, when flying, you know, you get to the airport and they say, you show them your ID and they say ‘uh, too bad sir, you’re in zone five.’ [drops mic, makes funny face] I say ‘at least I’m not in the Twilight Zone.’ [mugging for laughs].”
He riffs on the names of people in the audience, doing terrible improv; he riffs on his wife (“I call her the nag, HAHA”); he riffs on vegan food. And then he gets to Trump. And you can feel a subtle shift in the audience, as if they expect this to be the meat of the show, or maybe too intense, or just a little more serious. But he does the same thing he’s been doing—botching a “Russia, Russia, Russia!” joke—before moving on to terrible impressions of movie stars and a bit on Coke vs. Pepsi.
Cooper and Heidecker are doing similar things in these two specials. Sure, Heidecker’s a bit more aggressively and intentionally unfunny; Cooper’s a bit more topical. But they’re both deconstructing common entertainments and reveling in their absurdity in order to reveal the banality underlying our distractions. In the end, Heidecker’s vision is a more comforting one despite its more aggressively anti-viewer stance, suggesting as it does that Trump is fodder for hack laughs, not worth obsessing over. You could plug just about any presidency into that portion of the show and it would change very little; when he’s gone, he’s gone.
Let’s hope that’s the case.


thebulwark--2020-10-28--Getting Past Partisan Blinders

Getting Past Partisan Blinders

“ Man is not a rational animal ; he is a rationalizing animal.
” —Robert Heinlein Among many lessons learned over the last excruciating four years is this : Partisanship is a more potent drug than heroin .
I consider myself to be in recovery , but by no means cured .
The urge to curate information to suit your own prejudices is nearly impossible to conquer—even when you ’ ve switched sides .
( Especially then , if the examples of David Horowitz and Sohrab Ahmari are any guide . )
I haven ’ t become a Democrat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , I have a side , and it ’ s the one I was against most of my life .
Yet I am as committed , no more committed , to seeing a Democratic victory this year than I ever was to supporting a Republican , and that partisanship , even a temporary partisanship , is shaping my thinking .
A small example : I find myself scanning polls showing the state of the race and skipping quickly over the ones that show surprising Trump strength , then forcing myself to double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even to acknowledge the possibility that he might be reelected .
How often , in the past , did I skip over liberal arguments or facts that supported the opposing side ?
I can ’ t honestly say .
I tried to be open-minded and fair .
But I ’ m aware now of how often I probably wasn ’ t , and am not still , and if you don ’ t mind my saying so , you probably aren ’ t either .
Many on my former side can not understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best way to make a closing argument is to examine some of the rationalizations I see coming from people who seemed , in 2016 , to be as adamantly opposed to Trump as any , but have since accommodated themselves to the party ’ s drift .
Ben Shapiro has changed his mind .
In 2016 , he made a cogent case against Trump .
He said he was committed to a conservatism that was “ not racist , not sexist , not bigoted… not vulgar and vile to women and the disabled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caricature of what every leftist believed about conservatives .
Trump , Shapiro argued , would irreparably tarnish the conservative brand .
Accordingly , he would never vote for him .
Until 2020 .
He explains that he was wrong about where Trump would land on policy , and that he has governed in a more conservative fashion than Shapiro expected .
He cites judges , leaving the Paris climate accord , ending the Iran deal , moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem , “ crushing ” ISIS , and cutting taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative accomplishments .
The appointment of conservative judges ( leaving aside the norm-shredding manner in which two Supreme Court vacancies were handled ) tops every Republican ’ s list .
But this is a hollow victory .
It comes at the hands of an administration that has treated the law like bird cage liner .
The Trump presidency has undermined the law in a thousand ways .
You can not proclaim the administration ’ s commitment to law when the chief executive repeatedly instructed officials to break the law in exchange for pardons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vigilantism , stoked domestic terrorism by winking at the attempted kidnappings of governors , paid hush money to a porn actress , unlawfully diverted funds to his illusory border wall , illegally withheld aid to an ally in an attempt to extort a damaging story about his opponent , treated Congressional subpoenas with contempt , and abused his commander-in-chief authority to use military force against peaceful demonstrators across from the White House , among innumerable other violations .
Trump has declared that Article II of the Constitution ( a written document and therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to do whatever he wants .
He has encouraged his followers to distrust the courts , the bureaucracy , the press , scientific experts , and , most dangerously , the elections , so please don ’ t tell us that because he ’ s appointed conservative judges he has achieved a victory for the rule of law .
Weighed against his thorough disdain for law , and the disrespect he has encouraged among the people , the judges , however impressive , do not even the scales .
Conservatives used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m old enough to remember when they ( we ) excoriated Barack Obama for rewriting the ACA by fiat and changing immigration policy with a wave of his hand .
Without rule of law , this country becomes indistinguishable from unstable and dangerous places around the globe .
Without trust in the sanctity of law , minority rights are endangered and everything becomes a matter of sheer power—a chilling prospect in a nation with 400 million guns .
But apparently , respect for law is like believing that Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election year… Conservatives also used to say that character mattered , and some still struggle with this .
Shapiro ’ s solution is to suggest that , while Trump ’ s moral example is terrible , all of the damage that can be done on that front is already done , and will not be augmented by another four years .
Not so .
Millions of children are maturing in a nation whose chief executive models the sort of behavior it has required centuries to anathematize .
They watch and learn .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priest , rabbi , and minister , must attempt to countermand the message that deceit , enmity , cruelty , and recklessness pay off .
Further , those in Trump ’ s orbit , and that includes the entire Republican party with the exception of Sen. Mitt Romney , must adjust their own moral standards .
In 2016 , after Trump disparaged the judge in the Trump University case as biased because the Indiana-born Gonzalo Curiel was “ a Mexican , ” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan rebuked him for “ textbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentiments of the Republican party and the nation .
Three years later , when the president lead chants of “ Send her back ” about an African-American member of congress , Paul Ryan was gone and the Republican party was silent .
In 2018 , when the administration ’ s child separation policy became public , a few Republicans objected .
Sen. Susan Collins told CBS that she favored increased border security , but : Collins was not alone .
Sen. Orrin Hatch and a dozen other Republican senators lobbied Attorney General Jeff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francis weighed in .
And the policy was ended ( though not the tragic consequences ) .
But being the Trump party requires that uncomfortable pangs of conscience be quieted .
The morally flexible Federalist has hailed the child separation as the only moral approach .
Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh , who acknowledged that the family separations were “ regrettable ” nonetheless maintained that Maybe , just maybe , if we have tortured these families by forcibly separating even nursing babies from their mothers , we might just make partial amends by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their children here ?
Contra Shapiro , it can and will get worse .
Being a part of Team Trump , aka a Republican , requires dulling one ’ s conscience and rationalizing the indefensible .
There ’ s another theme that surfaces in Trump-friendly precincts .
Sometimes it ’ s presented as analysis , and at other times as reporting , but it goes like this : The folks who like Trump are simply resorting to the only available option to express their defiance of the “ woke ” elites .
Rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pull off an upset in 2020 , it will be as a gigantic rude gesture directed at the commanding heights of American culture.
” And Tim Carney describes a Trump rally in central Pennsylvania this way : “ The farmers , coal miners , gun-owners , and bikers have had their share of sand kicked in their faces , but for now , they feel like they ’ re winners .
And it ’ s because of Trump.
” This is the technique we ’ ve grown accustomed to in the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are disrespecting working class people or gun-owners or farmers .
You represent the snobbish “ elites ” who kicked sand in their faces , and who can blame them for giving you the finger in the form of the Bad Orange Man ?
Who exactly is really disrespecting working class people ?
Do you need a college degree to find mocking the handicapped disgusting ?
Must you be a professional to despise selfishness and cruelty ?
Do working class people not have a stake in the rule of law and protection of minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagrantly , is that a sign of respect or contempt ?
Finally , a word about the Democrats .
Any number of Republicans justify their heretofore unimaginable support for Trump by reference to the “ radicalism ” of the Democrats .
The Democrats are going to destroy your suburban idyll , confiscate your guns , upend the economy with the Green New Deal , and invite either MS-13 or Cory Booker ( perhaps both ! )
to move in next door .
Does this obvious claptrap really require refutation ?
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s proposed tax increase will at least begin to address the gargantuan deficits of the Trump era .
Reduced spending would be preferable , but let ’ s be honest , a tax increase isn ’ t the end of the world .
After all , our economy withstood the Trump tax increases .
What , you haven ’ t heard about those ?
That ’ s because they ’ re filed under tariffs and Trump claims China paid them .
But that ’ s a lie .
We paid them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no open borders , and no destruction of the suburbs .
Those are the shrill bleats of a dying campaign .
Will there be policies conservatives will dislike ?
Assuredly , yes .
But there is no reason for hysterical fear .
In fact , Joe Biden , institutionalist to his core , is about the best Democrat we could have gotten in 2020 .
Take a moment to consider how lucky we are .
When one party goes nuts , as the Republican party did in 2016 , the normal response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embrace sweet reason but to stampede toward equal and opposite radicalism .
Some figures in the Democratic party did just that .
The 2020 election could so easily have devolved into a death match between radical right and radical left .
But the Democratic party chose Biden , a centrist who has emphasized from day one how much he longs to unite a fractured nation .
In Biden they ’ ve chosen such an institutionalist that even in the face of severe Republican provocation he has refused to endorse court packing .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s savagery , Biden has stuck to his essential decency .
Trump ’ s closing message is a raised middle finger .
Here is Biden ’ s , spoken at Warm Springs , Georgia on October 27 : Biden is a fine politician of the old school .
After the last four years , that feels like Pericles .

“Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” —Robert Heinlein
Among many lessons learned over the last excruciating four years is this: Partisanship is a more potent drug than heroin. I consider myself to be in recovery, but by no means cured. The urge to curate information to suit your own prejudices is nearly impossible to conquer—even when you’ve switched sides. (Especially then, if the examples of David Horowitz and Sohrab Ahmari are any guide.)
I haven’t become a Democrat, but for the purposes of the 2020 election, I have a side, and it’s the one I was against most of my life. Yet I am as committed, no more committed, to seeing a Democratic victory this year than I ever was to supporting a Republican, and that partisanship, even a temporary partisanship, is shaping my thinking. A small example: I find myself scanning polls showing the state of the race and skipping quickly over the ones that show surprising Trump strength, then forcing myself to double back. It is almost physically painful even to acknowledge the possibility that he might be reelected. How often, in the past, did I skip over liberal arguments or facts that supported the opposing side? I can’t honestly say. I tried to be open-minded and fair. But I’m aware now of how often I probably wasn’t, and am not still, and if you don’t mind my saying so, you probably aren’t either.
Many on my former side cannot understand my anti-Trump vehemence, so perhaps the best way to make a closing argument is to examine some of the rationalizations I see coming from people who seemed, in 2016, to be as adamantly opposed to Trump as any, but have since accommodated themselves to the party’s drift.
Ben Shapiro has changed his mind. In 2016, he made a cogent case against Trump. He said he was committed to a conservatism that was “not racist, not sexist, not bigoted… not vulgar and vile to women and the disabled,” in short, not the caricature of what every leftist believed about conservatives. Trump, Shapiro argued, would irreparably tarnish the conservative brand. Accordingly, he would never vote for him.
Until 2020. He explains that he was wrong about where Trump would land on policy, and that he has governed in a more conservative fashion than Shapiro expected. He cites judges, leaving the Paris climate accord, ending the Iran deal, moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, “crushing” ISIS, and cutting taxes.
Many conservatives believe that these are conservative accomplishments. The appointment of conservative judges (leaving aside the norm-shredding manner in which two Supreme Court vacancies were handled) tops every Republican’s list. But this is a hollow victory. It comes at the hands of an administration that has treated the law like bird cage liner. The Trump presidency has undermined the law in a thousand ways.
You cannot proclaim the administration’s commitment to law when the chief executive repeatedly instructed officials to break the law in exchange for pardons, engaged in witness tampering, encouraged vigilantism, stoked domestic terrorism by winking at the attempted kidnappings of governors, paid hush money to a porn actress, unlawfully diverted funds to his illusory border wall, illegally withheld aid to an ally in an attempt to extort a damaging story about his opponent, treated Congressional subpoenas with contempt, and abused his commander-in-chief authority to use military force against peaceful demonstrators across from the White House, among innumerable other violations.
Trump has declared that Article II of the Constitution (a written document and therefore unfamiliar to the president) gives him authority to do whatever he wants. He has encouraged his followers to distrust the courts, the bureaucracy, the press, scientific experts, and, most dangerously, the elections, so please don’t tell us that because he’s appointed conservative judges he has achieved a victory for the rule of law. Weighed against his thorough disdain for law, and the disrespect he has encouraged among the people, the judges, however impressive, do not even the scales.
Conservatives used to regard the rule of law as sacred. I’m old enough to remember when they (we) excoriated Barack Obama for rewriting the ACA by fiat and changing immigration policy with a wave of his hand. Without rule of law, this country becomes indistinguishable from unstable and dangerous places around the globe. Without trust in the sanctity of law, minority rights are endangered and everything becomes a matter of sheer power—a chilling prospect in a nation with 400 million guns. But apparently, respect for law is like believing that Supreme Court seats should never be filled in an election year…
Conservatives also used to say that character mattered, and some still struggle with this. Shapiro’s solution is to suggest that, while Trump’s moral example is terrible, all of the damage that can be done on that front is already done, and will not be augmented by another four years.
Not so. Millions of children are maturing in a nation whose chief executive models the sort of behavior it has required centuries to anathematize. They watch and learn. Every decent parent, teacher, coach, priest, rabbi, and minister, must attempt to countermand the message that deceit, enmity, cruelty, and recklessness pay off.
Further, those in Trump’s orbit, and that includes the entire Republican party with the exception of Sen. Mitt Romney, must adjust their own moral standards. In 2016, after Trump disparaged the judge in the Trump University case as biased because the Indiana-born Gonzalo Curiel was “a Mexican,” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan rebuked him for “textbook racism.” Ryan was expressing the common sentiments of the Republican party and the nation. Three years later, when the president lead chants of “Send her back” about an African-American member of congress, Paul Ryan was gone and the Republican party was silent. In 2018, when the administration’s child separation policy became public, a few Republicans objected. Sen. Susan Collins told CBS that she favored increased border security, but:
What the administration has decided to do is to separate children from their parents to try to send a message that if you cross the border with children, your children are going to be ripped away from you. That’s traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims, and it is contrary to our values in this country.
Collins was not alone. Sen. Orrin Hatch and a dozen other Republican senators lobbied Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse the policy. Pope Francis weighed in. And the policy was ended (though not the tragic consequences).
But being the Trump party requires that uncomfortable pangs of conscience be quieted. The morally flexible Federalist has hailed the child separation as the only moral approach. Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh, who acknowledged that the family separations were “regrettable” nonetheless maintained that
The fact is it’s not as simple as you make it sound or Joe Biden made it sound on the stage last night to locate the parents who are in other countries. And when they do locate them, it has been DHS’ experience that in many cases the parents do not want the children returned.
Maybe, just maybe, if we have tortured these families by forcibly separating even nursing babies from their mothers, we might just make partial amends by allowing those parents to be reunited with their children here?
Contra Shapiro, it can and will get worse. Being a part of Team Trump, aka a Republican, requires dulling one’s conscience and rationalizing the indefensible.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
There’s another theme that surfaces in Trump-friendly precincts. Sometimes it’s presented as analysis, and at other times as reporting, but it goes like this: The folks who like Trump are simply resorting to the only available option to express their defiance of the “woke” elites. Rich Lowry writes, “If Trump manages to pull off an upset in 2020, it will be as a gigantic rude gesture directed at the commanding heights of American culture.” And Tim Carney describes a Trump rally in central Pennsylvania this way: “The farmers, coal miners, gun-owners, and bikers have had their share of sand kicked in their faces, but for now, they feel like they’re winners. And it’s because of Trump.”
This is the technique we’ve grown accustomed to in the Trump era—if you aren’t pro-Trump you are disrespecting working class people or gun-owners or farmers. You represent the snobbish “elites” who kicked sand in their faces, and who can blame them for giving you the finger in the form of the Bad Orange Man?
Who exactly is really disrespecting working class people? Do you need a college degree to find mocking the handicapped disgusting? Must you be a professional to despise selfishness and cruelty? Do working class people not have a stake in the rule of law and protection of minority rights?
If someone lies to you flagrantly, is that a sign of respect or contempt?
Finally, a word about the Democrats. Any number of Republicans justify their heretofore unimaginable support for Trump by reference to the “radicalism” of the Democrats. The Democrats are going to destroy your suburban idyll, confiscate your guns, upend the economy with the Green New Deal, and invite either MS-13 or Cory Booker (perhaps both!) to move in next door. Does this obvious claptrap really require refutation?
I’m no fan of increasing taxes, but Biden’s proposed tax increase will at least begin to address the gargantuan deficits of the Trump era. Reduced spending would be preferable, but let’s be honest, a tax increase isn’t the end of the world. After all, our economy withstood the Trump tax increases. What, you haven’t heard about those? That’s because they’re filed under tariffs and Trump claims China paid them. But that’s a lie. We paid them.
There will be no gun confiscations, no open borders, and no destruction of the suburbs. Those are the shrill bleats of a dying campaign. Will there be policies conservatives will dislike? Assuredly, yes. But there is no reason for hysterical fear.
In fact, Joe Biden, institutionalist to his core, is about the best Democrat we could have gotten in 2020.
Take a moment to consider how lucky we are. When one party goes nuts, as the Republican party did in 2016, the normal response of the other side is not to embrace sweet reason but to stampede toward equal and opposite radicalism. Some figures in the Democratic party did just that. The 2020 election could so easily have devolved into a death match between radical right and radical left.
But the Democratic party chose Biden, a centrist who has emphasized from day one how much he longs to unite a fractured nation. In Biden they’ve chosen such an institutionalist that even in the face of severe Republican provocation he has refused to endorse court packing.
Despite opportunities to respond in kind to Trump’s savagery, Biden has stuck to his essential decency.
Trump’s closing message is a raised middle finger. Here is Biden’s, spoken at Warm Springs, Georgia on October 27:
Time and again throughout our history we’ve seen charlatans, con men and phony populists who sought to play on our fears and appeal to our worst appetites and pick at our oldest scabs for their own political gain. They appear when the nation has been hit the hardest and when we’re at our most vulnerable… I’m running as a proud Democrat but I’ll govern as an American president. I’ll work with Democrats and Republicans. I’ll work as hard for those who don’t support me, as for those who do.
Biden is a fine politician of the old school. After the last four years, that feels like Pericles.