Thursday, January 18, 2018

Trump, GOP Exploit Fear

Tony Schwartz, Donald Trump's ghostwriter for "The Art of the Deal," knows him very well. He has an article up in The Guardian describing how Trump is driven by fear and exploits fear in others.

Fear is the hidden through-line in Trump’s life – fear of weakness, of inadequacy, of failure, of criticism and of insignificance. He has spent his life trying to outrun these fears by “winning” – as he puts it – and by redefining reality whenever the facts don’t serve the narrative he seeks to create. It hasn’t worked, but not for lack of effort.

In his first year in office, Trump has lambasted any facts he dislikes as “fake news”, while making nearly 2,000 false or misleading claims of his own – more than five a day. In a single half-hour interview with the New York Times in late December, he made 24 such claims. This is the very definition of gaslighting – lying until you get people to doubt their own reality – and it is both frightening and disturbing. Because the office Trump now occupies makes him the most powerful man on Earth, his fears, and the way he manages them, have necessarily become ours.

We fear Trump because he is impulsive, irrational and self-serving, but above all because he seems unconstrained by even the faintest hint of conscience. Trump feels no more shame over his most destructive behaviours than a male lion does killing the cubs of his predecessor when he takes over a pride.

Trump did not invent exploiting fear for political gain. The Republican party has been stoking the fear and resentment of voters to rally support for essentially unpopular policies (tax cuts for the wealthy, rolling back consumer protections, militaristic foreign policy) since Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Trump is both the logical result and an amplifier of decades old trends in GOP politics.

Take a look at Fox News with the sound off. Notice the bright, glaring colors. See the eye candy on-air "talent." Take in the quick camera cuts, sound bite editing and sheer amount of visual stimulus (a constant "crawl" of content at the bottom, time, ads and stock quotes in the corners). BUSY!

Combine all of that stimulation with alarmist, often anger/fear stoking content and the preferred state of the viewer is clear. Fox wants its viewers riled up. So do Trump and the Republican Party.

Trump has made fear the dominant emotion of our times. This, I believe, is his primary impact on the body politic after a year in office. He began his campaign by describing immigrant Mexicans as rapists, Muslims as terrorists, and more recently all black and brown people, and entire countries, as inferior. Trump skilfully exploited the fears of supporters who felt powerless and disenfranchised by presenting himself as their angry champion, even though the policies he has since pursued are likely to make their lives worse.

About the only thing Trump truly has in common with his base is that he feels every bit as aggrieved as they do, despite his endless privilege. No amount of money, fame or power has been enough to win him the respect he so insatiably craves. His anger over this perceived injustice is visceral and authentic. Trump’s unwinding of government programmes such as Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act will fuel yet more fear among the millions of people will lose their health care in the year ahead. The tax plan Trump pushed through most benefits him, his family and his fellow billionaires and provides the least relief to those who need it most. In both cases, the victims of these policies will include millions of his supporters who may find someone else to blame, but whose suffering will inexorably increase.

In the face of fear, it is a physiological fact that our most primitive and selfish instincts emerge. Control of our behaviour shifts from the prefrontal cortex to the emotionally driven amygdala – sometimes referred to as “fear central”. As we move into fight-or-flight mode, we become more self-centred, and our vision narrows to the perceived threat, which in the modern world is less to our survival than to our sense of value and worthiness. We lose the capacity for empathy, rationality, proportionality and attention to the longer-term consequences of our actions.

This is the reactive state Trump has tapped into with his followers and which he has prompted in his opponents. It serves none of us well. Think for a moment about the immense difference between how you feel and behave at your best and your worst. It is when we feel safest and most secure that we think most clearly and expansively. It’s also when we are most inclined to look beyond our self-interest, and to act with compassion, generosity, consideration and forgiveness.

Trump and his Republican enablers will never be talked or reasoned out of this madness. That is because they are responding from the emotion-driven mid-brain, as Schwartz points out. Facts don't mean much to someone in this fear and anger driven state. The only route to making our politics more that of "compassion, generosity, consideration and forgiveness"--in short, sanity--is their defeat at the polls in November. Democratic campaigns are beginning canvassing and phone banking now to identify, contact, motivate and get our voters to the polls.

Let's do this.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Trump-Russia Turning Point

Josh Marshall argues that we are at "the end of the beginning" of the Trump-Russia scandal on Talking Points Memo.

So where are we now in this story? A series of revelations in the final weeks of 2017 placed us at what we should think not as the beginning or the end but the end of the beginning. We are still only at the front end of this investigation. We still know only the outlines of what happened and how. But we are past any serious question about whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. There was. It’s no longer a matter of probability, even high probability. We know it from either undisputed facts or sworn statements from Trump associates now cooperating with the Mueller investigation.

There were not one but numerous instances in which Russian cut-outs or intelligence officers reached out to Trump associates with offers of support and/or news of stolen documents to support his campaign. These overtures were eagerly reciprocated. None of them were reported to US authorities. While this was happening, Trump’s pro-Russian statements became more aggressive and explicit on the campaign trail. Soon after, J.D. Gordon, the lead on the campaign advisory group, which informally oversaw Papadopoulos, Page and the rest intervened on that Ukraine platform plank which got press soon after.

We know there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during 2016. We just don’t know how much. We don’t have proof about how high it went. Did Trump himself know? How much did his longstanding but pre-campaign role with Russian organized crime and money laundering play into Russian efforts to secure his election? (That’s actually the question that most animates my mind.)

What about Paul Manafort, the man who fortuitously and really inexplicably ended up as Trump’s campaign manager, despite decades out of US politics, who himself had two decades of history working with and for the same Russian and Ukrainian oligarch elite? What about Sam Clovis, Trump’s campaign co-chair, a key early foreign policy advisor and the guy who was on the receiving end of so many of Papadopoulos’s emails? Does it stop with him? Did he really never tell anyone else what was happening? Did he encourage Papadapoulos to keep moving forward on his own account?

Those remain the live questions. But I say the end of the beginning because the core question about collusion has been answered in the affirmative. We know this. Any reasonable survey of the evidence now makes this clear. What remains uncertain is whether it was (improbably) limited to a few non-central members of the campaign or whether it went right to the top.


That’s what we’ll learn this year.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Today's Trump-Russia Thought

The likelihood that the Russians essentially own Donald Trump is an under-appreciated element to this whole story. After a string of bankruptcies following the collapse of his Atlantic City casino venture, Trump could not get financing. Enter hundreds of millions in investments in Trump ventures from oligarchs from the former Soviet republics who needed a way to launder stolen money.

Former DNI James Clapper's compliment to Putin this week on skillful management of his unwitting (and witless) asset in the Oval Office was dead on. Trump has  consistently acted to protect his personal financial livelihood. He knows where his bread is buttered and who butters it. The Russians can knee-cap Trump not just politically but financially whenever it suits them. How else to explain Trump's oddly obsequious behavior toward Putin/Russia when he bullies everyone else so relentlessly?

Trump's personal legal vulnerability in the Mueller probe centers around an obstruction of justice case that makes itself (efforts to get Comey to let Flynn go, firing Comey, admitting to firing Comey to stop the Russia probe). It is also hard to imagine Trump isn't vulnerable to joining Manafort in the money laundering Hall of Fame for his financial dealings with oligarchs noted above.

The Trump-Russia end game looks like it will come down to the irresistible force of Mueller's prosecutorial expertise versus the immovable object of GOP defense of Trump's corrupt undermining of American democracy. The tipping point may come with what 538, Sabato, RCP and other pollsters predict will be a wave election in 2018 flipping either or both houses of Congress. GOTV efforts in 2018 will be critical to holding Trump accountable for his crimes.

Democratic control on the Hill would result in either the death or crippling of Trump's administration by investigation. Unlike the endless GOP misuse of that tool versus Hillary Clinton, those investigations would have the virtue of being about actual crimes.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

GOP Hypocrisy on FBI/Justice Department

Jonathan Chait details the screaming Republican hypocrisy on the FBI and Justice Department handling of tbe Trump-Russia investigation in New York Magazine.

Tuesday night, officials from the Department of Justice invited reporters to see something scandalous: text messages by FBI agents sent during the presidential campaign expressing … opinions about the political campaign. One message called Bernie Sanders “an idiot like Trump. Figure they cancel each other out.’’ Another read, “God, Trump is a loathsome human.” “I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president,” read yet another text.


Republicans in Congress spent the day expressing indignation at the horror and bias of it all. Here, finally, was evidence of the sinister deep-state conspiracy of which Trump had warned. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — the two authors of the offending texts, who were reportedly in a romantic relationship — have already been removed from the Trump investigation, but the mere fact they ever had any involvement strikes Republicans as fatally suspect. “This is not just political opinions. This is disgusting, unaccountable political bias, and there’s just no way this could not affect a person’s work,” cried Representative Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas. Senator Lindsey Graham called for a full investigation. It has become the centerpiece in the argument circulating throughout the party media that the FBI is the equivalent of an anti-Trump secret police and which must be purged of enemies.

The notion that a person who considers Trump an idiot has no business judging him is a novel one. Rex Tillerson referred to Trump as a “fucking moron” yet has continued to serve as secretary of State. Graham himself has called Trump a “kook” and “unfit for office.” This is not even a controversial opinion among Trump’s handpicked staff. That Trump is ignorant, emotionally fragile, and unable to learn or handle his tasks is the stated and unstated premise of the endless stream of leaks emanating from scores of people who work for him. It is the conventional wisdom not only in Washington but within the White House.


Obviously, law-enforcement agents have a duty to segregate their opinions from their work. But the idea they cannot express political viewpoints is a standard invented in recent weeks for the purpose of discrediting the people investigating the Trump administration. As Representative Ted Lieu pointed out, acting FBI director Christopher Wray has donated $39,000, and Deputy Attorney General Rachel Brand $36,000, both exclusively to Republicans. These are public donations, not text messages to a romantic partner that were never intended for public consumption.

The notion that the FBI has been harboring a bias for Democrats is especially rich. Like most law-enforcement agencies, the FBI tends to attract people who lean right. While the politics of its leaders and agents can’t be quantified, it is disproportionately white and male. To some extent this is probably unavoidable. Getting good staff means attracting people who are especially enthusiastic about their mission, and law enforcement will tend to draw from the right of center just as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Health and Human Services will tend to draw from the left of center.

There is relatively strong evidence evidence that the FBI’s conservative bias influenced its behavior during the election. Reporting indicated Republican-leaning agents were agitating for a prosecution of Clinton. Agents leaked damaging stories to Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani, who — not anticipating that his party would decide the next year that politically opinionated FBI agents were scandalous — boasted openly about his contacts. This pressure culminated in then-director James Comey’s extraordinary decision, in the final ten days of the campaign, to publicly announce a reopening of the investigation into Clinton on the basis of the flimsiest evidence — some old Anthony Weiner emails that predictably amounted to nothing.

At the same time, Comey refused to disclose that the FBI was in the midst of investigating Trump’s web of ties to a hostile country that was attempting to intervene in the election on his behalf. Unlike the email investigation, the Russia probe has already produced multiple indictments and two guilty pleas to date. Yet the FBI created a news environment in which Clinton was portrayed as under investigation and Trump was not.


Indeed, if you recall, when Trump fired Comey earlier this year, his pretext was that Comey had treated Clinton unfairly. (“We do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of  declined criminal investigation,” noted the letter from Rod Rosenstein, which the administration waved around to justify replacing Comey.) Now the charge is that the agency was unfairly biased in her favor.