PMC Commentary

Exposing the obvious and freeing the guilty

The malevolent Pat Buchanan famously urged President Nixon to burn the tapes. Buchanan may have been malign, but had Nixon listened to him, the 37th president most likely would have finished his second term. With no recorded smoking gun — Nixon's conspiracy to order the CIA to halt the FBI's Watergate investigation — the Republican Party would have remained loyal, Congress would have had nowhere to go, and Nixon's resignation would have been no more than a Democratic pipe dream.

Likewise, many — including me — are still baffled by Trump's refusal to sack Bob Mueller before Mueller could do inescapable damage to Trump. Months ago I simulated a kind of Buchananesque role in malignantly speculating that Trump's only way out was to fire the special counsel. The public uproar would have been stentorian — but brief, as all Trumpian outrages have been.

Instead, Trump dithered, to put a Cheneyesque spin on it. Now the president is caught in the endless web of exposure spun by that prince of fucking darkness (to malefactors), Robert Mueller. This Dudley Do-Right always gets his man. Thus Trump — an especially dimwitted target who's now delightfully known as "Individual 1" — was ill fated as long as the special counsel was free to investigate.

To substantiate my latest charge of Trumpian dimwittedness, I offer this particularly enjoyable passage in the Washington Post: "During the midterm campaign, the president occasionally told advisers that people had forgotten about the Mueller probe and remarked positively that it was no longer dominating TV headlines." Yes, and Melvin Purvis had ceased looking for Dillinger as he watched Manhattan Melodrama in Chicago's Biograph Theater.

The hell of it all, however, is this: Notwithstanding Mueller's overwhelming evidence of the president's misadventures, mendacity and malfeasance, the latter is likely to walk. As always, his party remains indifferent to presidential crimes far worse than Nixon's, since Trump's base also keeps these partisan buffoons in office.

A nostalgic myth has flowered of late — that of a reputable GOP in 1974, heroically abandoning the president in his criminal high-noon hour of beat-the-rap need. Forgotten is that Nixon retained party loyalty, by and large, until the smoking-gun tape revealed his wrongdoing beyond any reasonable doubt. Only then did Sen. Goldwater & Friends inform the president that it was all over.

Yet the GOP of 1974 was at least comparatively reputable. For no such act of political decency will be replicated by the current Republican gang of Trumpian boosters. In their eyes, there is no crime too great, too offensive, too characteristically Trumpian that justifies abandonment. And so the Republican Senate is his ultimate backstop.

But, dimwitted as he is, Trump tends to forget this fundamental fact of political life today. Rather, he "often grows aggrieved seeing Cohen on TV," as the Post puts it. Why? He'll walk anyway.

 

Geographical Update

Rest assured, gentle reader, that in no one way am I going for the solipsistically oriented here, but visiting the West Coast Mecca of used books, Powell's — on the East Coast, Strand in New York City — is a personally absorbing experience. Over the years I have invested God knows how much in Powell's financial well being, and its expansive book availability made researching my dissertation a breeze. (Heres a bit of information that might intrigue the pecuniarily deficient, as I am. I have recently discovered ThriftBooks.com, which offers free shipping on orders of $10 or more, which is, in a word, fabulous. And $40 less than Powell's.) Anyway, my first stop in Portland was the aforementioned Mecca of reading, which L. Reeves — photo credit — digitally captured. (She's quite the shutterbug.)

A commenter asked earlier that I photograph my "haul." In just half of one aisle out of hundreds I picked up the following, which came to $66. Another hour in Powell's and I would have been bankrupt — although, what a nice way to go.

Here I and my official photographer are, in downtown Portland, surrounded by the lights of Christmas spirit. I actually possess a full head of hair, but the bright lights obscured my Elvis Presleylike crown. Isn't Ms. Reeves lovely? (Photo credit: a passerby.) 

I shan't bore you with daily updates of our doings, but thought you might enjoy seeing the first day's worth. Tomorrow morning I shall return to observing the godawful state of our union, though I must say, Mr. Cohen has lightened my heart considerably.

From the land of sandals and daisies, I am,

Your faithful servant,

PM

 

Housekeeping notice 2

On my first day in Portland, I have decided that seeing the city and absorbing the culture is more advisable than prattling on, again, about Trump and his assorted criminal gangs. First up — and this may be a logistical mistake — is Powell's Books, from which I have ordered many a title. I say "mistake" because I may lose myself in their aisles upon aisles of historical works. Then various venues downtown must be seen and dropped in on, so that I can get my geographical and cultural bearings. So I'll say it again, and with more feeling this time — See you tomorrow.

 

Housekeeping notice

Tomorrow (Wednesday) morning, I'm heading to that far periphery of the deep state, Portland, Ore., to visit my lady friend. There I shall also commune with pony-tailed men in sandals and women with  peace-making daisies.

Together, we shall overcome. Or, now that I'm a wee bit older, overcomb.

I shall learn the world's inner truths through West Coast wisdom, as only the young can know it and aging Baby Boomers knock it. Years ago, we of the latter capitulated to the harder truths of the eternally unchangeable — God forgive us. It's not that we have given up on progress; it's just that we've learned that progress is not always what it's cut out to be. And determining what's progress and what's backsliding is more difficult to discern than we once thought.

But I do intend to refamiliarize myself with youthful hope, if not naïveté. For I'll be in the very heart of — the absolute ground zero of — progressive groupthink.

But with my lady friend in hand and love in my heart, I'll be carrying a few daisies, too. I draw the line at sandals.

See you Thursday morning.

 

The mistake of calling the president

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal's Bob Davis interviewed Trump about trade relations with China. Here's a taste of Trump's presidential sharpness.

Davis: What can you say about the possibility of a deal?

Trump: It all began with the World Trade Organization, a disaster. A disaster. I would actually say that was perhaps – I say NAFTA was the worst trade deal ever made. I would say only – only – challenged by the WTO. That has been – if you look at China, China’s ascension was the day that the WTO was signed. It’s a one-sided deal. They were treated as a – you know, as a growing country, as a – what would you say? How would you say that?

Davis: Developing country. Developing.

Good grief.

Aside from the WTO being a "disaster," and China, too, presumably, Trump said the European Union has also "been a disaster for the United States." And "NAFTA was one of the worst trade deals ever made." Because "Mexico and Canada have been, you know, very, very hard on the United States." Given what Trump believes to be his predecessors' poor governance, how did the U.S. ever become the world's largest economy?

Moving along,

Trump: … I have another $267 billion [in imports] to go if I want, and then I’m also able to raise interest rates. And we have money that is pouring right now, pouring –

Davis: When you say interest rates, do you mean – do you mean tariffs, as opposed to interest rates?

Trump: I’m sorry, the rate…. And here’s the story: If we don’t make a deal, then I’m going to put the $200 — and it’s really $67 — billion additional on at an interest rate between 10 and 25 depending.

Of some students, one just lets go.

 

Paul Manafort, playing the long game

"How do you find the word that means Paul Manafort?" asked Rodgers and Hammerstein, who thereupon answered, "A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!" Perhaps. Or, Manafort may be playing the long game.

The flibbertigibbet financial fraudster and justice obstructor has, as you know, forfeited his plea agreement with Bob Mueller because of his "crimes and lies" to the special counsel about pretty much everything. Hence Manafort now faces a refiling of dropped charges and decades in prison (which, at 69, he'd never see in full).

And so, according to the president this morning, "The Phony Witch Hunt continues," or rather "The now $30,000,000 Witch Hunt continues and they’ve got nothing but ruined lives." Naturally, Trump's assessment overlooks the gang of former aides who have pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators: Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos. Coming soon to the list are Roger Stone & Friend, Jerome Corsi, both of whom are also facing federal charges of lying to investigators.

That's a whole lot of lying — i.e., covering up — by perfectly innocent chaps who've been sucked into nothing but a Phony Witch Hunt. Why is it that Trump and those around him either demand a truncated end to an investigation of crimes they're innocent of, or lie to investigators about their innocent acts? That is odd behavior indeed by the guiltless.

"Everybody who lies to Mueller gets called on it — so [Manafort] had to know that Mueller would catch him," said former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance to the NY Times. "So the question is: What was he hiding that is worse than going to jail for the rest of your life?… It was likely more than one lie and this would not have been a minor detail — it had to be something material and significant and intentional."

The more material question is: What was he hiding that is worth a presidential pardon? Because that, conspicuously, is what Manafort longs for, and just as conspicuously expects — and will probably get.

If forthcoming, however, Trump would merely be adding another criminal charge to Mueller's upcoming bill of particulars. As the Times reports, "A former lawyer for Mr. Trump broached the prospect of a pardon with one of Mr. Manafort’s lawyers last year, raising questions about whether he was trying to influence Mr. Manafort’s decision about whether to cooperate with investigators."

Now that's somewhat significant, in that dangling a pardon to persuade Manafort to be uncooperative would unquestionably constitute obstruction of justice. One can be just as certain that Trump's "former lawyer" would rat him out — although that's really not necessary, given the overwhelming entirety of charges that Mueller will soon submit.

 

Trump previews his post-atrocities career move

I suspect the below is the conceptual seed of Trump's political media empire, which, according to reports, he had planned on constructing after he lost in 2016. I'd guess he now plans its construction in 2021, just after he gets his deserved comeuppance in 2020. He can spend two years telling the world how the Clinton/Obama machines "rigged" the 2020 presidential race against him, another two years how he beat all the Mueller raps (simple, the Republican Senate), and his final years as the televised headmaster of the School for the Ethically Challenged and Morally Bankrupt.      

....and false way. Something has to be done, including the possibility of the United States starting our own Worldwide Network to show the World the way we really are, GREAT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 26, 2018

Why even ask?

First Read notes that "the laws of political gravity [finally] applied to Trump in 2018 … [and this] provide[s] an important lesson for 2020: Political fundamentals still matter."

First Read then asks,

"Looking ahead to 2020, can Trump broaden his popularity and raise his job rating?"

It seems to me that one would have to be on a powerful psychotropic to even ask the question. To "broaden [Trump's] popularity" would mean to broaden his base; it means that his outrageous behavior would stop and he'd start behaving like a reasonable human being. Trump has never displayed even the faintest inclination to be anyone other than Trump — loud, ignorant, disrespectful, lawless, unprecedentedly mendacious — and there is zero evidence that he would begin humanizing himself now.

His deplorable traits may have been what put him into office, but they'll also be the traits to take him out.

 

General Motors: Expect a call?

These announcements always seem to come in the holiday season. The Wall Street Journal:

"General Motors Co. plans to make significant cuts to its North American workforce, cutting more than 8,000 salaried employees in the region and ending production at three factories, potentially affecting another 6,000 assembly line jobs."

Well, that's what General Motors plans. But I'm sure if The Donald just gets on the blower to Mary Barra, GM's chairman and CEO, the company will obligingly throw its plans in reverse.

(Two of the "production endings" will occur at plants in Ohio and Michigan, better known, collectively, as 34 Electoral College votes.)

 

The gestalt of America First

In an op-ed worthy of Breitbart.com, one Lee Smith argues in the journalistic runner-up Washington Times:

Trump’s statement this week in defense of an America First foreign policy has united what otherwise appears to be a divided foreign policy establishment.

While Washington demands Mr. Trump punish Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, for the murder of Saudi national Jamal Khashoggi, Mr. Trump defended his decision to prioritize an alliance with an oil-rich country that generates American jobs while serving as a pro-U.S. anchor in a region full of dangerous adversaries, from Iran to ISIS.

Thus, according to Republicans and Democrats alike, Mr. Trump has betrayed American values….

However, there is nothing wrong with putting America First.

But what are the values of America First? Obama officials Ben Rhodes and Jake Sullivan offer a tidy delineation: "picking fights with allies, shredding international agreements, devaluing human rights, cozying up to President Vladimir Putin of Russia and outsourcing much of our Middle East policy to Saudi Arabia."

Tonight Mr. Trump will further define American values as he rallies for another Smith — Mississippi senatorial candidate Cindy Hyde-Smith — who finds humor in perhaps being invited to a "public hanging," presumably of the state's black senatorial candidate.

America First is a package deal, which runs from picking fights with allies to devaluing human rights everywhere, including at home.

 

The new Pancho Villas

Makes you proud, doesn't it?

"The three were part of a much larger group, perhaps 70 or 80 men, women and children," observes the Post, "pictured in a wider-angle photo fleeing the tear gas. Reuters photographer Kim Kyung-Hoon shot the images, which provoked outrage and seemed at odds with President Trump’s portrayal of the caravan migrants as 'criminals' and 'gang members.' Trump officials said that authorities had to respond with force."

Responded California's Democratic governor-elect Gavin Newsom:

These children are barefoot. In diapers. Choking on tear gas.

Women and children who left their lives behind -- seeking peace and asylum -- were met with violence and fear.

That’s not my America. We’re a land of refuge. Of hope. Of freedom.

And we will not stand for this. https://t.co/1APpeHIq6v

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 26, 2018

But we will stand for this, for at least two more years.

 

Climate change and the march to ignorance

Now comes the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, a magnificently distressing document, compiled by 300 scientists and 13 federal agencies, which forecasts "record wildfires in California, crop failures in the Midwest and crumbling infrastructure in the South," as well as the disruption of "American exports and supply chains," the decline of "agricultural yields" (possibly "to 1980s levels by midcentury"), and a "fire season [that] could spread to the Southeast."

In sum, a scientifically informed forecast of widespread environmental and economic devastation that flies in the face of Trump's determined ignorance about anthropogenic harm. So why would the administration agree to the Climate Assessment's unaltered release, albeit on Black Friday, when virtually no one was paying attention? The answer won't surprise.

"White House officials made a calculation," reports the NY Times, "that Mr. Trump’s core base of supporters most likely would not care that its findings are so at odds with the president’s statements and policies." The president could tell them the sky is green, and they'd argue in defense of his atmospheric wisdom.

Said Steven Milloy, who oversees the junk website junkscience.com and was a member of Mr. Trump's E.P.A. transition team: "We don’t care. In our view, this is made-up hysteria anyway" — part of the deep-state conspiracy to undermine Trump's spectacular agenda. "Trying to stop the deep state from doing this in the first place, or trying to alter the document, and then creating a whole new narrative — it’s better to just have it come out and get it over with," said Milloy, a man who genuinely knows his market.

"This is a new frontier of disavowance of science, of disdain for facts," said Bush I's E.P.A. administrator, William Reilly. But many Americans — just how many is unknown — are becoming accustomed to it, which is the objective of every authoritarian state. It keeps pumping out the ignorance and lies until public muddlement morphs into the status quo; it persists in disdaining facts until facts become mere play things.

The ultimate objective of the authoritarian state? To quash news stories such as the NY Times' (and commentary such as this). And that is rather old frontier — a well-trodden, tried-and-true path to authoritarianism as the status quo.

 

The latest Trumpian drivel, in your bookstore this week

I sat down to write about some matter of importance (i.e., anything but what follows) but got sidetracked by Philip Rucker's coverage of Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie's new book, Trump’s Enemies: How the Deep State Is Undermining the Presidency, which will grace bookstore shelves — presumably in the Humor section — on Tuesday.

Rucker notes that "The narrative reads in part like Trump’s Twitter grievances in book form," which pretty much says it all. From there, one can envision the book in its entirety. For instance Bob Mueller's Russia investigation and the notion of Trump's collusion are, according to the authors, "a sweeping work of fiction so complex, so audacious, so unbelievable that if they gave out awards for bad excuses, the Democrats would win an Oscar, an Emmy, and maybe even the Heisman Trophy." I suppose that's what passes for comedic light-heartedness in the right-wing world; disappointingly, however, the passage contains no Trumpian exclamation point! — which would have really driven home the serious humor. (!)

The greater theme of the book is boldly reflected in its title: There are, and have been, "embedded enemies of President Trump" laboring to destroy his glorious work. And they're everywhere — "scores of officials inside the White House, Congress, the Justice Department and intelligence agencies," observes Rucker, who managed to read all 288 pages of this dreck.

At their most outrageous, the book's "disloyalty" and, essentially, lack of will-to-power themes are somewhat reminiscent of Hitler's parting document, in which he blamed everyone but himself for Germany's destruction. In Trump's case, only the nonexistent deep state and "swamp creatures" have worked to undermine "his political movement," so it seems, for now, the American people are off the hook for having betrayed The Trumpian State. I await a revision.

Perhaps the most striking blindness comes in this Lewandowski-Bossie passage: "There are far too many people in the deep reaches of the federal government who harbor as deep a hatred of Trump as does anyone from the Clinton/Obama cabal." I suppose that's true. Yet evidently the authors never stop to wonder why.

Why would those in the deep reaches of government as well as the majority public not harbor a deep hatred of a man who founded his political movement on the racist lie of birtherism? And then went on to subvert the rule of law, in addition to thousands of other despicable acts. Trump's apologists only attack, they never ponder — not honestly, anyway.

 

In 2020, Trump's comeuppance

Politico gives us a heartwarming story for this holiday weekend: "Warning signs mount for Trump reelection bid." It's a tale of things topping out — or perhaps bottoming out — as well as looking up. Much of the plot is derived from the recent elections, which, early on, I mistakenly saw as little more than a disappointing trickle of blue, rather than what it was: the embryonic crest of a Democratic wave.

The cardinal warning signs for Trump are two, the first of which is his approval rating. It's in the doldrums. “This is now the party of Donald Trump…. Trump voters own the Republican Party," says a Republican pollster. "The bad part is they haven’t broadened [his coalition]. They haven’t gotten his job approval over 50 percent, like Reagan." And they're unlikely to do that. (For the record, Reagan's approval was Trumplike in the midterm election year of 1982, but soared to nearly 60 percent just prior to the presidential election of 1984.)

The unlikelihood of Trump achieving a Reagan recovery is grounded in the famous tribalism of contemporary politics. "It’s so divided by partisanship," says a UCLA political scientist. "Republicans approve of him, and Democrats don’t. And that’s pretty much the floor and the ceiling. There’s not a lot of room for movement, unless Republicans turn on him, or Democrats learn to like him. I don’t see either of [these] things happening."

Democrats, on the other hand, have abundant room for movement, as the midterms just demonstrated. Politico notes that "the biggest advances for Democrats were made in the three states that put Trump over the top in the Electoral College in 2016: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Democrats won the governorships in all three.... Democratic incumbent senators in all three won reelection"; the Dems "also won six more House elections across Michigan and Pennsylvania."

As a Democratic pollster put it, "There’s simply no evidence that those states are crying out for more Trump."

All else being equal, the presidential flipping of those states in 2020 would put the Democratic candidate over the top. And one can be sure that in the next contest, that candidate will be spending plenty of time in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Another Republican pollster tells Politico that we should "Be careful of extrapolating 2018 success into what it means for 2020.... 2018 was more of a referendum on President Trump. 2020 is going to be more of a choice. And Trump does much better in a choice battle when he has someone to run against." The pollster should also be careful of assessing the president's warrior skills empirically. For how many general-election showdowns has Trump won? One. (And that victory came against maybe the worst retail politician in modern political history.) 

To recap, for two years the president has been unable to sail out of his (at best) 40-percent-approval doldrums — nor has he tried — plus critical, even decisive Electoral states are re-bluing. Those states now have two years to watch the economy almost certainly slow. From these two phenomena we can extrapolate a reasonably solid storyline — and it's a heartwarming tale of Trumpian comeuppance.

 

California: ground zero of the GOP's demise

From nearly a week ago, a fascinating look into California's Republican politics: "RIP, California GOP: Republicans lash out after midterm election debacle."

Said Calif. GOP political consultant Mike Madrid: "I believe that the party has to die before it can be rebuilt. And by die — I mean, completely decimated. And I think Tuesday night was a big step…. We hemorrhaged college-educated Republican voters on Tuesday night. The 'diploma divide' is a very real thing. The smaller it gets, the more monolithic is gets. The whiter it gets. The more populist-nationalist it gets. What you’re seeing in the Republican Party is that it’s the party of white identity politics."

Said a former GOP Assembly leader, Kristin Olsen: "The California Republican Party isn’t salvageable at this time. The Grand Old Party is dead." She "particularly" pointed out "the effects of toxicity of President Trump," noted Politico.

Said former McCain adviser John Weaver, who has worked in the state's politics: "In one fell swoop Trump & Republicans who willingly handcuffed themselves to him have turned Orange County into a GOP wasteland. You want to see the future? Look no further than the demographic death spiral in the place once considered a cornerstone of the party."

Indeed "a growing number of Republicans in the party’s #NeverTrump wing" — did Politico mean the growing #NeverTrump wing? — "insist that a new beginning will rely heavily on a full-throated repudiation of Trump’s caustic divisiveness."

The keenest insight came from Democratic political strategist Darry Sragow: "They have to take down the 'whites only' sign from the clubhouse door. And if they’re willing to allow people who aren’t white into the club, they may be able to recover. I think that the GOP is capable of turning itself around, because it’s a well-established brand. The problem is, the people who manage the party are going to have to be willing to do that. And by definition, they are the opposite of that. They have no interest in that."

The quotes pretty much say it all. I would only add that when reading Politico's account, one may be forgiven for mistaking the story for one regarding the Republican Party nationwide.

Trump's toxicity is a continental phenomenon, and, except for the deep South and a few pockets of whites-only mentality elsewhere, it is the toxicity of the president that is acutely hauling the party to wholesale destruction. The early myth of Trump's 2016 victory as a catharsis of economic anxiety has long been overthrown; it is now universally agreed, based on election analyses, that he won because of racism and what American historians referred to in the 1950s as "status anxiety."

Yet Trump is merely the latest, and most grotesque, manifestation of what has plagued the Republican Party for decades — and ultimately will bring it down. God knows it's trying, but the GOP cannot forever forestall demographic changes in the U.S., and those changes portend the end of the GOP as we have painfully come to know it. As long as the party insists on huckstering its white-populist-nationalist theme, it is doomed.