The Carpentariat

This year, giving singular thanks

In this annual ritual of giving thanks (secretly, for a four-day weekend), I can think of no worthier gratitude than for the coming installation of an authentic check — a Democratic House — on our out-of-control president.

The current Republican Congress is a trifle confused; it behaves as though its institutional role in our traditional system of checks and balances is that of celebrating, defending, or simply ignoring the authoritarian buffoon in the White House. On occasion we have heard a Republican congressman or two say that some latest Trumpian outrage should be looked into by Congress. But that's the last we hear of it. Nothing is ever done.

Earlier this month, American voters sent an unmistakable message to the GOP: Playtime is over, and you're in time out. In what eventually became a true tidal wave of disgust, the electorate demanded that Trump be checked — not impeached (not yet, anyway), but subjected to the congressional oversight that Republicans once lavishly applied to Presidents Obama and Clinton. While divided government may not always be the best government, today it's indispensable government.

The president is not only incorrigible, he's stupid, ill informed, reckless, disdainful of law and quite possibly mad. This collection of unpresidential traits is what the Republican Party found universally defensible — mostly in fear of Trump's base. The nation could go in the toilet of malign authoritarianism for all GOP pols cared, as long as they got themselves reelected with the support of a base as malign as the president.

Most voters were of a differing sentiment, and on 6 November, they expressed it quite well. And for that I am enormously thankful.

 

Just to complete our Wizard of Odd theme ...

Thomas Friedman's suggestion as to what Trump could have told the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, rather than patting him on the head (for God's sake, he didn't even slap him on the wrist) while selling out American values:

I know this came from you. And so you’re not getting a free pass. For starters, you’re going to let every one of these women driving activists that you’ve arrested out of jail; you’re going to announce an immediate, unilateral cease-fire in Yemen — let the Iranians and Houthis have it and we’ll side with you if they attack from there. You’re going to end this stupid blockade of Qatar, and I expect you to keep taking steps to moderate Saudi Islam and ensure that Salafi-jihadist ideas are not exported to any mosque or madrasa from your country ever again.

That's far too sophisticated, too humane and too reasonable for Trump to comprehend.

James Khashoggi's death might have meant something for the good, if only Trump had a brain, and a heart.

 

Our quivering, bullying president

Notwithstanding his chest-pounding, Trump has never visited the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are deployed. As to why, he's been quite inventive.

In private meetings he has said our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are "a total shame," and "he does not want to associate himself with wars he views as failures." He has also said "long flights and potential security risks" speak against presidential visits to combat zones.

Whether or not our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are shameful failures, men and women of the U.S. armed forces are there, thus it's the duty of any commander in chief to make morale-boosting visits. The troops may suspect their mission is in vain, but they don't wish to believe the same about the possible loss of their lives. (In addition, if the president genuinely believes the troops' presence is failure-bound, why not pull them out?)

As for long flights and potential security risks, other presidents have faced the same downsides, and somehow overcome them.

So at last we come to the reason — the real reason — why Donald J. Trump, bully extraordinaire, has refused to visit war zones. Said a "former senior White House official, who has discussed the issue with the president": "He’s never been interested in going. He’s afraid of those situations. He’s afraid people want to kill him."

Yes, a rather unpleasant situation the troops face every day.

What a coward — the Janus face of every bully.

 

And so it begins

The Washington Post:

"Several Wall Street analysts said the tech sector is the downward leader of a market facing multiple threats, including rising interest rates, a strong dollar, trade and tariff wars with China, muted earnings forecast for 2019 and an incoming Democratic House of Representatives that could be less accommodating to business."

But who was the real "downward leader" of at least four of the five — "muted"2019  earnings being a possible exception — threats?

 

Love it

 

Much to worry about in Trump's latest statement

Below are the core elements of the most shameful, amoral and, astonishingly, victim-blaming statement to ever emerge from the once-exalted American presidency. Yesterday I speculated that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's "foul behavior may be more critical to Trump's attraction [to him] than the (fake) $110 billion." I have faintly revised my opinion. I still believe Trump is attracted to MBS's foul behavior, but specifically, the prince's having murdered a journalist — an "enemy of the people" — is what has fascinated and exhilarated our pathetically unmanly president. MBS has rather flagrantly done what Trump wishes he could do; in short, he is living vicariously through the murderous prince, and in that sense, defending the prince is tantamount to defending himself.

Trump's statement, titled "The world is a very dangerous place!":

"The Kingdom [has] agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States [it won't]. This is a record amount of money [because Trump made it up]. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs [no], tremendous economic development [no], and much additional wealth for the United States [no]. Of the $450 billion, $110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other great U.S. defense contractors [even they don't agree with Trump's assessment]. If we foolishly cancel these contracts [at this time, there is virtually nothing to be cancelled], Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries….

"The crime against Jamal Khashoggi was a terrible one, and one that our country does not condone … [but on the other hand] Representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an 'enemy of the state' and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood [my emphasis]…. This is an unacceptable and horrible crime … [but, again, on the other hand] King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi…. It could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t! [que sera sera]

"In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia…. The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia [so shove it]….

"As President of the United States I intend to ensure that, in a very dangerous world, America is pursuing its national interests and vigorously contesting countries that wish to do us harm. Very simply it is called America First!"

[Addendum]

… which will make the world more dangerous by the year, as other nations pursue their own [------] First! policies.

What kept this planet from WW III for 70 years were U.S.-led alliances, diplomatic networks, and expanding global trade. America First! upsets precisely the international arrangements that promoted and maintained the peace, but I'm ending all that because my ignorant, testosterone-pumped base is psychologically damaged and thus positively adores my loud, equally ignorant mouth. We believe we can do to the world what I've always done closer to home: bully it. What we cannot comprehend — or just don't care about — is that China First! could easily dominate Asia and the Pacific Rim, and Russia First!, Eastern Europe. The world will become a tripolar or perhaps a multipolar farrago of pure, unadorned self-interest. And with that will come war.

Good night, and good luck.

 

Ivanka's emails - they must be "bigger than Watergate"!

This administration's indifference to integrity and outright stupidity are breathtaking.

"Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules," reports the Washington Post.

"The discovery alarmed some advisers [!!!] to President Trump, who feared that his daughter’s prac­ tices bore similarities to the personal email use of Hillary Clinton, an issue he made a focus of his 2016 campaign."

Said a spokesman for Ivanka's lawyer: "While transitioning into government, after she was given an official account but until the White House provided her the same guidance they had given others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes used her personal account"…. Said the Post: "Like Trump, Clinton also said she was unaware of or misunderstood the rules."

And said government-watchdog American Oversight: "There is no reasonable suggestion that she didn’t know better. Clearly everyone joining the Trump administration should have been on high alert about personal email use."

Clearly, they should have. But outright stupidity often outweighs the administration's other principal attribute, above. In fact they seem to be saddled with an unshakable stupidity that surpasses any of the stupidest things other administrations did; and here I include Watergate, which Trump once said was eclipsed in criminality by Clinton's personal email use.

Parenthetically, yesterday, former Clinton aide Neera Tanden shot off a couple stinging emails, which were also quite appropriate: 

The world will be watching the @nytimes coverage of Ivanka Trump’s emails.

— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) November 20, 2018

I’m truly surprised that the NYT reporters who breathlessly covered Hillary’s emails haven’t managed to tweet on Ivanka’s emails.

— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) November 20, 2018

Competition for 536 a.d. being "the worst year to be alive"

A reader sent this from Science magazine. I found it of remarkable interest.

"Ask medieval historian Michael McCormick what year was the worst to be alive, and he's got an answer: '536.' Not 1349, when the Black Death wiped out half of Europe. Not 1918, when the flu killed 50 million to 100 million people, mostly young adults. But 536. In Europe, 'It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year,' says McCormick....

"A mysterious fog plunged Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into darkness, day and night—for 18 months. 'For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year,' wrote Byzantine historian Procopius. Temperatures in the summer of 536 fell 1.5°C to 2.5°C, initiating the coldest decade in the past 2300 years. Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record "a failure of bread from the years 536–539." Then, in 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, in Egypt. What came to be called the Plague of Justinian spread rapidly, wiping out one-third to one-half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire and hastening its collapse, says McCormick, a historian and archaeologist who chairs the Harvard University Initiative for the Science of the Human Past."

(Has McCormick forgotten November 2016, when St. Thomas More wept, the sun darkened, locusts descended, livestock boiled, frogs teemed the Mississippi, fiery hail rained down, and children — and their parents — howled in fear? For a mere two months later, Donald J. Trump would be sworn in as America's — and the world's — greatest plague.)

 

Pelosi: success under fire

In response to Politico's "Pelosi’s bid for speaker imperiled as public opposition grows." there's Robert Draper's extensive profile, "Nancy Pelosi’s Last Battle":

What sets her apart from other legislators of her stature is her gender. Pelosi has been known to say: “No one gives you power. You have to take it from them.” The leitmotif of her three-decade ascent is that of a woman wresting power away from a male- dominated political machine, until one day the machine discovered she was its master.

Indeed, what sets her apart is that she's tough as titanium and, unlike Trump, she never gripes. She greets the world as it is, not as she wished it were.

As one of only 26 women in a body of 435 members [in 1987], Pelosi soon learned that, as her first chief of staff, Judy Lemons, told me: “Sexual harassment and sexual overreaching were absolutely institutionalized. It was part of the deal.”

Pelosi took the system as it was. It was never her way to complain about being called a “gutsy broad” by jowly old bulls like Dan Rostenkowski, a Democratic congressman from Chicago, and stared at like a filet mignon.

She has also handled squabbling Democrats nearly as well as FDR. Both took heat from just about everyone for mollifying the dreaded, internal opposition — Pelosi's conservative Democrats; in FDR's era, segregationist Southerners) — but none has been able to explain how a diverse party (the only kind that can win nationally) can do without diverse opinions.

During Nancy Pelosi’s four years as speaker, there was no confusion as to who was in control. Pelosi used the tools at her disposal — committee assignments, campaign donations — to establish a balance among her party’s coalitions…. "One of the things that’s really set Nancy Pelosi apart is her uncanny ability to unite all the different Democratic coalitions around a negotiating position," said former House member, Sen. Chris Van Hollen.

None of this is to say she's fault-free. Where I've always found her problematic is in her public-relations deficiencies, though it appears they couldn't be helped.

For all her mastery of Washington’s inside game, Pelosi has never been a deft public-facing politician. Early in her career, a close associate told me, Pelosi hired a speech coach and studied videos of herself, with no discernible improvement. An aide once gently informed her that a speech she had just given “meandered at times” — which Pelosi, who is notoriously tough on her staff, did not take well. “How was that — did I meander?” she said to the aide for weeks thereafter.

Then again, the quest for imitation is perhaps the highest compliment that could be paid.

Some of the Tea Party freshmen who came to power in 2010 railing against the “Pelosi liberals” would, when I interviewed them several years later, confide to me that they wished their Republican leaders possessed Pelosi’s spine.

Not one of Pelosi's House Democratic detractors match, or even come close, to her record as speaker.

 

By Christmas, the invading caravan's "ploy to destroy America" will be a done deal

Well, well ...

"The 5,800 troops who were rushed to the southwest border amid President Donald Trump’s pre-election warnings about a refugee caravan will start coming home as early as this week — just as some of those migrants are beginning to arrive.

"In contrast to the speed of the deployment in early November and the fanfare surrounding it, the withdrawal promises to be slower and quieter — but [the commanding officer] expects it to be done before Christmas," reports Politico.

Someone should alert Cadet Bone Spurs that the Army and Marines are retreating in the face of this massive southern "invasion"of "gang members," "very bad people," "Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners," which one of the president's astute supporters called "a ploy to destroy America, and to bring us to our knees." She added, "I’m not going to take it — not going to go down without a fight."

Sorry lady, but the ultraconservative radio host Michael Savage was right; the invading, virtually unmet caravan portends "the end of America as we know it."

The criminals and unknown Middle Easterners have won, for as the NY Times further reports, "A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president."

But, what did the president expect? As Dana Milbank reminds us, "Trump is surrounded by fools" — everyone but him. "No one has suffered as many fools as Trump has. But this is to be expected when a 'very stable genius' leads a 'stupid country.'"

 

Should Mattis (and any others with a brain) resign?

Write a professor emeritus of international affairs and two retired Army colonels:

The president used America’s military forces [on the southern border] not against any real threat but as toy soldiers, with the intent of manipulating a domestic midterm election outcome, an unprecedented use of the military by a sitting president….

The president crossed a line — the military is supposed to stay out of domestic politics….

The deployment is a stunt, a dangerous one, and in our view, a misuse of the military that should have led Mr. Mattis to consider resigning, instead of acceding to this blatant politicization of America’s military.

Well, that's the question, isn't it: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind of Mattis to suffer this outrageous president, or to take arms against Trump's sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?

All we can know is that Mattis' resignation would not end this president's sea of troubles, for that phrase is his middle name: He is all trouble, at all times. He thrives on it, and his squalid base loves him for it. What we can speculate on is, merely, whether it's nobler for Mattis to resign.

The veteran military correspondent Thomas Ricks once confronted this question, although then it was about National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. Initially, Ricks believed it was advisable for experienced advisers to stick around. "My thinking was that the more mature, thoughtful people we had in the administration, the better," he wrote. "I have come to think I was wrong. I no longer believe in the 'adults in the room' theory of containing President Trump and the similarly erratic and ignorant people around him."

Ricks' reasoning was essentially self-evident. "I have watched and waited, and I don’t see McMaster improving Trump. Rather, what I have seen so far is Trump degrading McMaster. In fact, nothing seems to change Trump."

Ricks wrote that more than a year-and-a-half ago. I don't know if he has again changed his mind, but I find myself endlessly vacillating. One day it seems just as self-evident that thoughtful presidential advisers are only a waste of good personnel, and on another day I thank Providence for the likes of Mattis on duty. But in either case, Ricks remains correct. Trump mostly degrades any thoughtful adviser.

Today I'm inclined to believe the defense secretary should resign. Of what value was his almost certain protest of Trump's idiotic, characteristically demagogic decision to deploy troops on the border? None, of course. On the other hand, might Mattis be able, someday, to persuade this idiotic president to not do something far more idiotic? Perhaps. So maybe Mattis shouldn't resign.

Tomorrow, I might reverse. I confess to a doomed wistfulness. I'd like to see the three or four of Trump's thoughtful advisers out of hundreds walk mini-en masse right out of the White House in final disgust of his imbecility, incompetence, malfeasance, recklessness and mean-spiritedness. Would we be better off? Again, that is the question.

 

Your political tribe, in five minutes

It's political self-identification quiz time again, if you're curious. The nonprofit group More in Common has developed a questionnaire (it took me maybe five minutes to complete) that will magically reveal you to be a progressive activist, traditional liberal, passive liberal, politically disengaged slob, moderate, traditional conservative or devoted conservative.

I emerged as a progressive activist, which surprised me, since I consider myself more of a traditional liberal. But, the two camps are often conflated; much of their idealism overlaps. The quiz did rather confirm my earlier post, in that in my assigned camp we are "Almost three times more likely to be 'ashamed to be an American' (69 percent v. 24 percent)." What's untrue, in my case, anyway, is that we are "More likely to say [we're] proud of [our] political ideology (64 percent v. 43 percent)." That seems a particularly nonsensible satisfaction. One either believes certain things or not — I haven't a clue as to why one would be "proud" of those beliefs.

If you'd like to be told what you're proud of, the quiz is here.

***

I should add that anyone with even a smattering of historical knowledge, empirical experience and current-affairs familiarity will find many of the questions objectively answerable and subject to disagreement only by determined ideology. One might believe, for instance, that socioeconomic mobility through individual effort is still the promise of yesteryear, but the socioeconomic evidence is that it is not. And therein lies the danger of ideological thinking: It's not really thinking at all.

 

Ashamed to be an American

Politico:

Trump said in an interview released Sunday that he didn't know whether Saudi Arabia's crown prince lied about his involvement in the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, despite evidence [and the CIA's conclusion] that he played a role.

Trump also suggested he may just live with it, even if Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman misled him, because "we do have an ally and I want to stick with an ally that in many ways has been very good."

The inhumanity and shamelessness of this thuggish president know no bounds. I deplored the administration of George W. Bush and resented that I was considered by foreigners part of the wild American pack that, along with the Supreme Court, put him in office. But I don't recall being ashamed to be an American.

Today, I am.

Certain pundits who are fond of clichés are also fond of calling Trump "transactional." This, it would seem, is a euphemism for cold-blooded, inhuman, sociopathic. In the crown prince's case, it is as well a much softer word for ignorant. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is endowed with no diplomatic experience or talent whatsoever, believes that Saudi Arabia is the key to Middle East peace, and so, because he is Trump's son-in-law, Trump believes him. And gives Prince Mohammed bin Salman a pass.

The president himself is fond of citing the $110 billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia as a fiscal reason for keeping the prince as a friend. But, as has been noted by fact-checkers, the dollar "number is fanciful and unlikely to come to fruition"; for another, the Brookings Institution's Bruce Riedel called Trump's dollar figure "fake news." In addition, the Saudis are famous for signing arms deals and then backing out.

Either way, is $110 billion the price of America's global reputation? We're already burdened with having the apartheid-loving Benjamin Netanyahu as a Middle East friend. Must we add a butcher like Mohammed bin Salman?

As a thug himself, Trump is, of course, naturally attracted to fellow thugs, even in defense of a friend's atrocity of "huge international import," as the Post's Aaron Blake observed. The president confuses bullying and personal belligerence for manliness and toughness. So just as naturally, this president would be attracted to the mafioso maneuverings of Saudi Arabia's crown prince. Indeed, the prince's foul behavior may be more critical to Trump's attraction than the (fake) $110 billion.

That, gentle reader, is arguable. What's unarguable is that, today, I and no doubt millions of others are ashamed to be an American.

 

But, but ...

I just read Kazan on Directing. My favorite line — actually, just a passage from the line — of its 289 pages?

"It is not essential that you should want to fuck the leading lady."

It's that kind of commonsense, give-it-to-us-straight advice that I admire in a semi-autobiographical work on professional judgment — Kazan himself, I gathered, often surpassed the "want" — although I'm not sure it would have worked with me directing Ann-Margret. Some things are eternal, immutable, and simply not up for debate.   

 

Nancy Pelosi and the incredibly stupid battle against her

We used to say, Only the Democrats could get themselves into such a mess. We can say that no longer, since Republicans have far overtaken the opposition in internal clusterfucking. Still, congressional Democrats are showing some of that old, fragmented leg, as the party engages in what should have been a mere tussle over House leadership. As the Washington Post puts it, it has instead "exploded into a national political campaign."

In the new Congress, the anti-Pelosi faction has more than the 15 votes needed (the Post reports 20) to block the minority leader's re-ascendence as speaker. "By week’s end," however, "a few opponents seemed to be wavering after one-on-one sessions with Pelosi." I can imagine. They probably wobbled out of her office with weak knees and imminent vomiting; the former speaker possesses little reluctance to exercise intimidation.

But those "few opponents" to Pelosi's speakership are also facing what the Post has so aptly called a "national political campaign." For instance, "Barbra Streisand retweeted a list of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s biggest legislative achievements"; "Rob Reiner called her 'the smartest, toughest strategic thinker in our party'"; and "tennis champ Martina Navratilova wondered aloud why Pelosi’s job was at risk but her Senate counterpart’s position was in no such trouble. 'Go figure,' Navratilova tweeted. 'A man loses and keeps his place, a woman wins and gets booted?!?'"

My pre-election position was that Pelosi should announce her retirement (while, perhaps, naming a protégé to mentor), but not because Republicans were saying bad things about her. Pelosi, though a brilliant strategist, lacks in the public-relations department. And the Dems need an appealing voice to represent them until a presidential candidate is chosen to be that singular voice.

Nevertheless, that ship has sailed; she's there and now she should stay there, especially since her opposition — and if this sounds insane, it is — has no candidate to run against her. What we're witnessing is a phantom resistance to the inevitable, and that's just dumb.

Because — "the contest," writes the Post, "seemed to deepen divisions within the party’s ranks that threatened to split Democrats after their resounding win." Internal — and very public — party strife is never a good face to present, but after a trickle that transformed into a wave is decidedly the worst possible time.

Let Republicans stumble around with their misnamed, always angry "Freedom Caucus." Democrats do not need an ill-natured counterpart. Give it up, Mr. and Ms. Congressional Democrat. Your only foe is Donald J. Trump.