Why Trump Is The Worst

 

Donald Trump

This guy.

 

I swear to kate, this blog was not supposed to be entirely about the election, and certainly not all about Trump, but as this nightmare becomes a reality, it is hard to avoid. It’s obvious to most of the country that Donald Trump is the worst, but it is still important, I think, to point out exactly why.

I know this sounds like apocryphal Pauline Kael, but I have yet to talk to a single human who isn’t disgusted by what’s happening, and who doesn’t feel fairly sick thinking about candidate Trump, or god help us, President Trump.  (They are obviously out there, of course. And there are a lot of them. They are the angry revenant of the original American character, one that predated and outlived the Revolution.) But what about it is exactly so sickening? I think it can be broken down into two main groups.

  • His platform, such as it is, which combines three horrifying planks in a way that is essentially unique in both American history and in the current world.
  • The fact that it is Donald goddamn Trump.

Continue reading

A few notes on tonight

  1. Caveat on the last long post: I mostly ignored Cruz. He is of course part of this movement and a pure creature of it, but is coming at it from a slightly different angle. If he wins Oklahoma, and puts some pressure on Trump, that’ll be worth discussing, but right now he can’t even carry most evangelicals.
  2. Things I Am Looking Forward To Tonight #1: Rubio making it close in Virginia (Fairfax and Arlington might help him get over the top, but he still might be too far away) and making a sweeping victory speech for coming in 2nd in one state. Even if he eeks out a win, it’ll still be wonderful to hear him say he’s going to ride this to the White House. A small win in the most favorable state!
  3. Things I Am Looking Forward To Tonight #2: Bernie winning in Massachusetts and his supporters trying to delicately argue that Hillary can only win states with large black populations. It’ll be a neat flip of 2008 when the Clinton camp tried to do the same with Obama. Of course that’s garbage, like it was in 2008. Equally garbage is the idea that most Bernie voters will sit out, scorned (something Hillary supporters said in 2008). Maybe some will, but not enough. Especially if it’s Trump.
  4. Hillary is being very smart about running for Obama’s 3rd term. That’ll bring out a lot of voters who want to protect his legacy, especially if Trump spends the next 8 months saying what a disastrous loser, and totally ineffective guy, Obama has been. Because I think a lot of us, black and white, will rise as one, and say: fuck that.

Super Tuesday: The Night The Myth Of Movement Conservativism Died

It’s a little after 6:00, Central Time, and the earliest polls in this strange Super Tuesday are beginning to come in. Some places are already calling Georgia for Donald Trump. This is not surprising, but is a state which some said held out hope for young Marco Rubio, the marshmallow savior for voters who think George W Bush was too intellectually engaged.

Today is also known as the SEC Primary, taking place as it does largely in the south. SEC is a nice modern way to put it, how we paint the New South, still idiosyncratic, but tucked away into the warm belt of the corporate/media nexus. It would be impolite though to call this what it really is: the Confederacy Primary. More than any other year since at least 1972, however, the Confederacy is dominating our politics, in the bizarre avatar of a know-nothing billionaire demagogue from New York. It’s a Southern kind of day in a Southern kind of year, and it exposes, for once and for all, the myth of the conservative movement, revealing what it always has been: a vehicle for atavistic rage, well-armed ignorance, xenophobia, and most prominently, white nationalism. There’s a straight line between William Buckley and Donald Trump, and the media’s inability or unwillingness to recognize it has led us to this calamity.

Continue reading

The Rubio Photoshop Fiasco: In Praise of Ratfucking

So, the real story of the Rubio photoshop incident, wherein the Cruz campaign circulated a doctored photo of a smiling Marco shaking hands with President Obama, is that the Republican party is so far gone that the very idea of a sitting senator meeting the President is enough to send a campaign tailspinning into sputtering agony. That’s nuts.

 

 

rubio-obama-650x326

The horror…the horror…

 

Horrors! According to Mediate, the Cruz campaign has responded to this with normal maturity. “If Rubio has a better picture of him shaking hands with Barack Obama I’m happy to swap it out,” says a spokesman. Because, you know, it is hideous to think that a Senator might ever do his job and work with the President to pass laws.

Continue reading

The ugly upcoming nomination battle

So Antonin Scalia, the flabbergastingly partisan Supreme Court justice whose rulings for the last 15 years were less judicial and more a highbrow translation of AM radio, has passed away.  No one wished for his death; just his resignation. He was a man who was loved, I’m sure. Still, in light of things like the insane and potentially catastrophic (and, it has to be noted unprecedented) ruling to stay the Clean Power Bill, this is an opportunity to move forward.

But it’s going to get ugly. If you listen closely, you can hear a thousand thinkpieces being written that will argue how it is tyrannical for a lameduck to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Senators are already limbering up for the nomination fight, practicing teary piousness about how the President owes it to the legacy of this great American patriot to nominate a “true Constitutional conservative”.  The confluence of an election year, Scalia’s unique role as berobed channeler of the right-wing id, and the unerring antipathy to letting Obama have any normal Presidential prerogative will make this perhaps the ugliest fight in Supreme Court history.

The prerogative is the important thing. Republicans take it as gospel that anytime Obama behaves like a President he is acting like a king. This time will be no different. A quick look back makes it seem like this is the latest in his term a President has had a Supreme Court nomination since LBJ, but that’s due to justices generally not resigning in an election year. This is different. There is nothing that can be done.  Barack Obama is still the President. It is 100% within his rights to nominate a justice, and 100% in his rights to nominate a justice

Barack Obama is still the President. It is 100% within his rights to nominate a justice, and 100% in his rights to nominate a justice  with whom he is aligned, politically and judicially. This being an election year doesn’t change that.

So when you hear an argument that Obama owes it to Scalia’s memory to appoint a true Constitutional originalist like Scalia (which he only was when it suited him, and which is a bankrupt and idiotic ideology anyway), or that he should do the right thing and postpone having 9 Justices for at least a year, remind them of Article II, section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Note it doesn’t say “3 years” or “but during an election year he shouldn’t do anything.” Obama was elected by a large majority for a four-year term, with all the Presidential perogatives that entails. No true Constitutionalist could argue otherwise.

Last Chance: CNN And The Trump Debate Decision

By and large, I agree with Slate’s Jim Newell about Donald Trump’s decision to skip the debate. I don’t actually see it impacting the polls too much. People who have decided “Yeah, I really think that Donald Trump should be the President of the United States” have different ideas about qualifications than you and I, and sticking it that stuck-up blond will, at worst, do little to shake their resolve. The only question is if this vocal and poll-driven support translates into action, to votes and to caucusing. So if he ends up winning Iowa this will look like a masterstroke of political will, and if he loses he’ll look like a dope, but they will be ex-post facto narratives.

empty-debate-podiums

To me, the important thing is that Trump invited the other networks to stream his “counter-programming”, a nauseatingly insincere “fundraiser for wounded veterans”, which attempts to give a patina of respectability to his petulance. It seems likely that his act can get higher ratings than the debate, if just because people will want to see how much he attacks Fox and Megyn Kelley, because people are attracted to his style(which is bizarre: his shtick sounds exactly like a peculiarly dimwitted third grader who just learned how to swear).

It’s CNN, and MSNBC, and any of the business spinoffs, that interest me, if they decide to show it. Let’s stipulate a few things.

  1. No one really thinks of CNN as journalism anymore. They do some good work, and their reach is impressive, especially during breaking news, but it is buried under speculative and sensationalistic fluff.
  2. The Republican debates have been seal-barking absurdities, completely disconnected from reality, and highlighted by the two young Hispanic hopes arguing about how the other one doesn’t hate Mexicans enough.
  3. Tonight’s debate won’t change that.

And yet, it seems to me to be important that nobody cover Trump’s event. In doing so, the networks will abdicate any pretense they have about politics being something that matters, something that impacts people’s lives. As bad as the debates are, they are necessary for people to get a glimpse at the candidates, how they are when taken off guard, their personalities, their strengths, and especially their weaknesses. Debates are usually scripted and easily veer into sideshow, but are still an important part of the process.

To say that “Trump is rewriting the rules!” is true, but it is impossible to argue for the better. Sending cameras to this self-serving egoshow only further undermines the disconnect between POLITICS! as a show and the real politics that can make lives better or worse for the hundreds of millions who aren’t on TV and in the club. It is saying that the only thing which matters is the spectacle, the human torso imping his knife-mouthed way across the screen.

Ratings are important, and advertising dollars keep the lights on. Sticking it to Fox would be fun for CNN and MSNBC, and it is always fun to see Fox get swallowed by the beast it created. At some point though, a decision has to be made on whether the commitment to democracy means something, and as over-the-top as this sounds, gleefully ignoring even the most surface-level demonstration of the electoral process so that a megalomaniacal billionaire can do his witless routine demonstrates that commitment means nothing.

Last State of the Union: LiveBlog!

7:51. Getting ready for President Obama’s last State of the Union. This should be a good one, even if it doesn’t have the mic-dropping moment of last year’s, which, in retrospect, was a signal that this wasn’t going to be a lameduck session.

Pictured: mic drop

Updates to follow in this space! Probably!

7:55. You know what would be neat? If Obama won the Powerball tomorrow.

7:56. This is from earlier, but there is no better way to draw a distinction between the GOP and the Dems than this passage.

As is the tradition, the two parties are inviting guests to highlight political points, with Michelle Obama, the first lady, leaving an empty seat in her box in recognition of victims of gun violence, and Speaker Paul D. Ryan inviting two members of an order of Roman Catholic nuns challenging the Affordable Care Act.

The thousands of gun violence, deaths a year vs the right to deny nurses condoms. Also: Kim Davis.

Continue reading

David Brooks Still Refuses To Get It

So, reading David Brooks when he is critical of the GOP is sometimes like watching a movie trailer for a bad comedy. You’re nodding along, laughing, things are going great, the narrator is saying something like “They were a perfect match, and had planned the perfect life, until…” and you hear the cheesy record scratch. Then there is, I don’t know, some kind of obnoxious kid or mean aunt or something. Maybe a really big rambunctions dog who raps. It’s not important. The important thing is that you are suddenly reminded that what you were vaguely enjoying is actually terrible.

That can sum up Brooks’s latest column about what an unbearable load Ted Cruz is. He starts with a story I had never heard, about how Cruz went to the Supreme Court to try to keep someone in jail for 16 years for stealing a calculator (he should have gotten a max of two, apparently)*. It is a perfect illustration of his unbending brutality and lack of anything relatable to human compassion. There’s even a few really good lines, like when he speaks of Cruz’s always-apocolyptic rhetoric, saying “As is the wont of inauthentic speakers, everythings is described as a maximalist existential threat.”

Continue reading

Snowden Spills His Secret

Edward Snowden, the 29-yr-old responsible for one of the largest national security leaks in US history, has an auspicious name.   In Catch-22, Joseph Heller’s biting, terrifying, wildly-funny and scathing satire on the the whole nature of war, the corruptibility of man, and, most importantly, the self-defeating loops of logic man twists himself into to justify inherent barbarism in a civilized age (of which the eponymous catch is just the most famous example), the main character, Yossarian, is haunted by an unknown character named Snowden spilling his secret.

The chronology of the book jumps back and forth, but the driving action is that something snapped in Yossarian when Snowden told him his secret.  The madness of the enterprise revealed itself in full for Yossarian.   It isn’t until late in the book that we see what caused the driving action, what really was Snowden’s secret.  (and spoiler alert here, I guess, though it was published almost 50 years ago, so come on).  While on a bombing mission, Yossarian’s plane took flack, and Snowden was injured.  Yossarian went to help the moaning man, complaining of the cold, and at first saw a good-sized wound on the man’s leg, but nothing absolutely fatal.  But then Snowden’s secret was revealed.  Yossarian removed the man’s jacket, and saw that a huge piece of flack had torn through his stomach.  The jacket had been weakly holding everything in, but then it all came out: all that made Snowden, blood and organs and flesh, poured out onto the floor and onto Yossarian.   The whole inner-workings were brought to light.  Man is just flesh, and war is designed to destroy that flesh.   The whole sick nature of everything was revealed.

It isn’t really stretching the point to say that Edward Snowden did much the same thing, only a bit neater (and honestly, it makes me think the name is fake.  It is almost too perfect).   The apparatus that this amorphous war has created has been brought to light.  I think most people suspected it, but the depth is stunning.  And perhaps the most surprising part is that everything that is done is legal.  Laws were passed by elected officials that allow for the government, which has also arrogated unto itself the right to assassinate American citizens and throw people in jail for indefinite periods without a trial, can mine nearly everything you do online and on the phone.

This is raw power, and it is scary.  The thing is, there can be arguments for why the government needs this, or why it is absolutely necessary for national security.   The problem is that we never had them (and I am a little worried that now the argument is going to be more about whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero than what he helped expose).   This is poison to a country that fashions itself as a democracy and an experiment in self-governance, as Charlie Pierce would put it.

So these are the things we can now discuss, now that they have been brought kicking and screaming into the sunlight.  Should the government be able to monitor your online and telephonic presence to any extent?  If yes, how much?  Does merely drawing connections between who is calling whom without actually listening in really invade your privacy?  Who gets to decide this?  The President? (not just this one, but any.  For Dems- of whom I am one- who think it is OK because of Obama, imagine that Scotty Walker somehow becomes the next President.)

More than that, at least in my opinion, is the question of worth.  The biggest elephant in the room, that no one would touch with a ten-foot pole, and other cliches of the type that we’ve been using for 12 years to avoid the real issue, is that guaranteed safety is at best illusory and at worst an invitation to live in North Korea, only without the dumpy charisma of Dear Leader Jr.   What we have done is upended our country, and our idea of privacy, due to a major and horrifying terrorist attack.  This was completely understandable, but terrorism is also a rare thing, and something that happens, and is, at the end, not 100% avoidable.  People will always want to hurt others, and unless we want to live in a police state, one who is constantly sending troops and robots around the world to do our bidding, it won’t ever be completely solved.

The problem is we weren’t really asked.  We were taken advantage of due to our fright, and our apathy.  This was partly the product of a strange confluence: this scarring, shattering, atavistic attack was roughly coincidental with the rise of social media and the death of public reticence.   We all have given up a lot of privacy.   Hell, right now, I am imagining there are people who want to know what I am thinking about this, and hoping that my picture reveals a “mysterious charm, like Batman”.   The government in a large way is merely taking what we have given.

But now they have to ask.  Now, thanks to Snowden, every elected official will have to take a stand on what they think of this (assuming the media does their job, and that is a big assumption).   We can finally talk about what has been done in our name, for us, to us.   A country of the people and by the people can’t have it any other way.  So it is messy and horrible and a stinking bloody peak into the world right under our fragile skin, but this was a secret that needed spilling.   America’s great sin over the past decade has been to not talk about this new kind of war.   If we don’t, one day the satire of Catch-22 is going to seem like a gentle look at a softer past.

What comes next

So, obviously the big magilla of the week is over the scandals folding over the Obama administration, with Benghazi, the IRS show, and the AP phone-record-gathering allowing partisans to slaver over the idea that the administration is at the very least done politically, if not on that slow boat toward impeachment.     It is my opinion that by the end of the summer impeachment is a distinct possibility.  Not because any of these issues merit it- they certainly don’t- but because the perversion of language, media, and the insular nature of our politics describes a set path, even if few want to go down the road.

Take the IRS scandal.   The obvious comparison, made in many places, is with Nixon using the IRS to attack political enemies.   This comparison is getting made so much, it is hardening into fact.   And it is absolutely ridiculous, a series of historical non-sequitors slathered over with a a slimy coat of hysterical frothing.   No one was audited; none of these groups were denied their status.  At most, they endured delays and had to answer arduous questions.   Now, one can say that their activities were curtailed as they hovered in a bureaucratic limbo, but they also were not required to become tax-exempt.   No one forced them to reach for this status.   There is no doubt that the IRS employees acted in a dumb and unfair manner, but to compare this even to Nixon is to not just stretch the truth, but tie it to the rack and quarter it.   And yet, that doesn’t stop a major news station from having guests compare it to Nazi Germany, because of course.

Or take Benghazi: the whole uproar is over the who said what and when, on the Sunday talk shows.  This is nonsense boiled down to its purest essence.   This is an impossible distraction from what could be real security issues, or, as Joshua Foust points out, from the very real questions about the mission creep of the CIA  and its role in national security.

But this post isn’t really about the meat of these issues (the AP one being the most legitimately troubling), but about how, in a very real way, the meat no longer matters.   Does anyone really believe that pointing out how not one of those groups were denied status is actually going to change anything?   Does anyone think that because the Republicans were the ones pushing for an investigation into the Yemen leaks, the investigation of which is what led to the AP phone-gathering, that they’re going to say to Obama, “well done”?  Or that the majority of Dems won’t find a way to justify it?

(note: that wasn’t an attempt at  Broderian equivalence-harvesting.   I firmly believe that there is one side who has completely gone of the rails, but, as a friend of mine said, selective memory is a trait of anyone political.)

Because it doesn’t matter.  The is an inexorable logic to impeachment, or at least to getting as near to it as possible before it explodes in the faces of those pushing for it.   Because there is no longer any need for facts.  Blogs will argue, pundits will go back and forth, there will be a rough general consensus that certain things are overblown, and other things are complete nonsense, but that won’t matter.  There is no real consequence in going against what the majority of people believe.  Huge majorities were in favor of expanded background checks, but that died a public and blood-choked death, and there wasn’t a single thing anyone could do about it.

We’re calcified and lumbering and in thrall to the worst.   As long as you can scream loudly and get your talking points out over the madding dim, you’ve won.  And so I think that there will be enough enthusiasm in the base, a not-insubstantial-number of whom believe that Obama orchestrated the attack so that Amb. Stevens would be captured, leading to Obama exchanging him for the Blind Shiek and therefore guaranteeing election, despite that being absolute gibbering insanity in all its forms,  that the drums will keep beating until people have been lured dumb and blind and enraged and crazy into the waiting nets.   Because even though the logic underneath the scandal has been exposed, the cruel logic of politics and the odd weightlessness of language is going to lead us into strange places this sweating summer.