Trump's repeated assertions that his campaign didn't collude with the Russians is probably what he truly believes. And it may indeed be the case that although he would have liked to have had their help, the campaign didn't wittingly engaged in any acts that would be construed as collusion with a foreign power. But even if that's the case, its still no reason for America and indeed the rest of the world not to be gravely concerned.
Trump's antipathy to the investigation and his refusal to take action to protect the integrity of America's electoral process can't easily be explained as a thin-skinned defensive reaction to allegations that he didn't win the election "fair and square". If, as he asserts, he is completely innocent, then he shoudl welcome the investigation and act to secure American democracy.
That he has not suggests something else is going on and the Manafort investigation points to what that might be. If Trump's businesses were engaged in similarly shady financial dealings with Russian entities, he may be terrified that Meuller's probe might uncover things that would land him in jail, hence his disdain (and fear) of Meuller's investigation.
And it is the threat that Russia might release that information that is behind his refusal to impose the sanctions Congress voted for overwhelmingly, his refusal to act to strengthen the security and integrity of the electoral system, and his refusal to condemn Putin and the Russian government. If that's the case, it's the threat of blackmail everyone should be concerned about.
Showing posts with label 2016 campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016 campaign. Show all posts
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Manafort's Gamble
Despite the guilty please of his long-time business partner, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort is refusing to take a plea deal. Given the documentary evidence Mueller has reportedly gathered and now with the likely corroborating testimony of Gates, it seems all but certain that, were the case to go to court, Manafort would be convicted. So what explains his refusal to accept a plea that would result in a lighter sentence?
The most likely explanation is that given his almost certain conviction, his best bet is a pardon from the President. Since Trump values personal loyalty above all, he has to demonstrate his loyalty to stand any chance of a pardon. Refusing to cooperate with Mueller won't affect his conviction, only his sentence, but sends a strong signal to Trump that he remains loyal to the end; an end that he hopes will be more sweet than bitter.
The most likely explanation is that given his almost certain conviction, his best bet is a pardon from the President. Since Trump values personal loyalty above all, he has to demonstrate his loyalty to stand any chance of a pardon. Refusing to cooperate with Mueller won't affect his conviction, only his sentence, but sends a strong signal to Trump that he remains loyal to the end; an end that he hopes will be more sweet than bitter.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Trey Gaudy, très bêtes
It turns out when you boil it down, that Trey Gaudy's bone of contention with the FBI is really about font size. The Nunes memo, which he was trying to defend on Face the Nation this morning, alleges that the FISA warrant was granted solely on the back of the uncorroborated "opposition research" Steele dossier. This claim is almost certainly false because 1) this was a FISA warrant "renewal", not the first granting and the FISA process requires the judges, plural, hearing the application demand that prior warrants have produced material intelligence, 2) the filing contained a great deal of other supporting documentation, so the Steele dossier was by no means the only evidence presented, nor indeed was it likely to have been pivotal, and 3) the fact that the Steele dossier was opposition research was caveat-ed in the filing as a footnote. So it would seem that it is the size of the font of that foot note that is the central claim of malfeasance in the Nunes memo.
Friday, February 2, 2018
The Nunes Memo
The much heralded and controversial memo landed today with a dull thud. Rather than the shocking revelation the alt-right was shouting about, it was the usual mishmash of inaccuracies and conspiracy theories we've come to expect from the The Fox wing of the Republican Party. Most people will be left feeling a little (if not very) annoyed that so many conventions and norms of decent behaviour were trampled on, not to mention the damage it does to Congress' ability to work cooperatively with government agencies, for so little of substance. To the informed follower of current affairs this was just another attempt to muddy the waters and distract attention from the investigation into Russian meddling in the last election.
But in fact it's probably been more useful that many of the pundits have been suggesting. While it was so anti-climactic that most people are happy to shrug and move on, it has done something I think quite important; it has provided support and cover for the Fox wing to continue supporting their hapless president. And should the Mueller investigation actually uncover grounds for impeachment, that's a very useful from of insurance.
But in fact it's probably been more useful that many of the pundits have been suggesting. While it was so anti-climactic that most people are happy to shrug and move on, it has done something I think quite important; it has provided support and cover for the Fox wing to continue supporting their hapless president. And should the Mueller investigation actually uncover grounds for impeachment, that's a very useful from of insurance.
Friday, November 4, 2016
To Laugh or Cry
I am not a US citizen so I will not be voting on Tuesday. I would have liked to have taken part in the 2008 and 2012 election, if only to have been able to say I had played a part electing Barack Obama. His 2008 campaign was exciting, optimistic and uplifting. This time I am thankful to be able to disavow, utterly and completely, any involvement in something so sordid, so depressingly uninspiring, so shameful, so deserving of contempt and ridicule.
Vladimir Putin's attempts to swing the election toward Trump are (probably) motivated in part by his antipathy toward Hillary (she criticised the integrity of the Russian electoral process while serving as Secretary of State), but also because in Trump he has found someone whom he parade in front of Russians, as he rigs his elections, to say "that's what freedom and democracy looks like". Authoritarian regimes all over the world must be rejoicing at the ugly spectacle that is this general election and the extent to which it has sullied the ideal of the democratic process.
How we got here is complex but George Packer, talking to Terri Gross this week, provided one of the most interesting explanations for the rise of Trump. He noted that the the working class were gradually deserted by the Democrats, who saw the decline of the power of trades unions and sought to shift their power base so the professional and educated liberals. Of course the unions were in part decimated by globalization and off-shoring, policies promoted by Bill Clinton. This was coupled with the general shift to the right of previously left-leaning parties (just as with "New Labour" in Britain) to gain the centre ground as their 1960s policies were being seen as increasingly outdated and irrelevant.
Packer also noted that the 90s answer to the rise of off-shoring, recently termed "Educationalist Elitism" by Hillary Clinton, was a college education. This was to be the way that the West would compete in the "knowledge economy" as manual jobs moved out. But that solution turned out to be doomed since the West doesn't have a monopoly on intelligence and its educational system has no distinctive competencies. So we are no more competitive in the knowledge economy than many other countries, and certainly not China and India.
If there is anything good to come out of this...
Well, I have to say nothing comes immediately to mind. Something did occur to me as I sat down to write, but now its gone. Time will tell.
Vladimir Putin's attempts to swing the election toward Trump are (probably) motivated in part by his antipathy toward Hillary (she criticised the integrity of the Russian electoral process while serving as Secretary of State), but also because in Trump he has found someone whom he parade in front of Russians, as he rigs his elections, to say "that's what freedom and democracy looks like". Authoritarian regimes all over the world must be rejoicing at the ugly spectacle that is this general election and the extent to which it has sullied the ideal of the democratic process.
How we got here is complex but George Packer, talking to Terri Gross this week, provided one of the most interesting explanations for the rise of Trump. He noted that the the working class were gradually deserted by the Democrats, who saw the decline of the power of trades unions and sought to shift their power base so the professional and educated liberals. Of course the unions were in part decimated by globalization and off-shoring, policies promoted by Bill Clinton. This was coupled with the general shift to the right of previously left-leaning parties (just as with "New Labour" in Britain) to gain the centre ground as their 1960s policies were being seen as increasingly outdated and irrelevant.
Packer also noted that the 90s answer to the rise of off-shoring, recently termed "Educationalist Elitism" by Hillary Clinton, was a college education. This was to be the way that the West would compete in the "knowledge economy" as manual jobs moved out. But that solution turned out to be doomed since the West doesn't have a monopoly on intelligence and its educational system has no distinctive competencies. So we are no more competitive in the knowledge economy than many other countries, and certainly not China and India.
If there is anything good to come out of this...
Well, I have to say nothing comes immediately to mind. Something did occur to me as I sat down to write, but now its gone. Time will tell.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
2020 Foresight
Some years ago, I was in Chicago. My flight home was early in the afternoon so I decided to use the morning to take a brief look round the Chicago Art Institute. From my outbound journey I knew the rail link from the airport took about an hour (as far as I remember), so I left the gallery at about 11:30, waked to the station and got onto a train to the airport.
For whatever reason (longer than expected wait for the train, a slower train going west than east, misremembered timing...) I arrived only 20 minutes before my flight. I ran all the way to the gate, arrived in the nick of time, the last to board, and took my seat completely out of breath and (to the probably discomfort of my fellow passengers) drenched in sweat. But I made it!
So what did I learn? The literature on learning suggests that a positive result reinforces the antecedent behavior. So if one considered making the flight a positive outcome, then my visit to the gallery and my somewhat cavalier attitude to being early is likely to be repeated. Alternatively if one considers my discomfort and stress, then this was a negative outcome and the behavior that caused it is likely to diminish.
Assuming that (thank the Good Lord), Trump doesn’t move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January, the question we need to ponder is do we consider this to have been a positive or a negative outcome? On the face of it, it would seem to be rather positive, a seriously dogged bullet. But I think that would be wrong. Looking at averting disaster as a positive outcome means we are destined to repeat the same fiasco in another four (or possibly 8) years.
We should, rather, consider what led us to this point. Better, I think to face the fact that there are some serious problem of which Trump is the most visible and obnoxious manifestation. Slow or stagnant economic growth for all but the wealthiest and growing income inequality, a broken justice system with many minor offenders locked up for decades, latent racial animosity (see also Hillary's list of -phobias), a structurally corrupt political system (campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door), out-of-control health care costs and rapacious drugs companies, concentration of oligopolistic corporate power, the conflation of money and free speech... The worst sentiments that the Republicans have spent the last 8 years fanning ferociously will be hard to extinguish; just putting out the flames will be hard enough.
And if we think we averted the Trumpocalpse, the incentive to fix any of this will be gone, and the history that is now being made may well repeat itself with a less inept character in the starring role in 2020. Then God help us all.
For whatever reason (longer than expected wait for the train, a slower train going west than east, misremembered timing...) I arrived only 20 minutes before my flight. I ran all the way to the gate, arrived in the nick of time, the last to board, and took my seat completely out of breath and (to the probably discomfort of my fellow passengers) drenched in sweat. But I made it!
So what did I learn? The literature on learning suggests that a positive result reinforces the antecedent behavior. So if one considered making the flight a positive outcome, then my visit to the gallery and my somewhat cavalier attitude to being early is likely to be repeated. Alternatively if one considers my discomfort and stress, then this was a negative outcome and the behavior that caused it is likely to diminish.
Assuming that (thank the Good Lord), Trump doesn’t move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January, the question we need to ponder is do we consider this to have been a positive or a negative outcome? On the face of it, it would seem to be rather positive, a seriously dogged bullet. But I think that would be wrong. Looking at averting disaster as a positive outcome means we are destined to repeat the same fiasco in another four (or possibly 8) years.
We should, rather, consider what led us to this point. Better, I think to face the fact that there are some serious problem of which Trump is the most visible and obnoxious manifestation. Slow or stagnant economic growth for all but the wealthiest and growing income inequality, a broken justice system with many minor offenders locked up for decades, latent racial animosity (see also Hillary's list of -phobias), a structurally corrupt political system (campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door), out-of-control health care costs and rapacious drugs companies, concentration of oligopolistic corporate power, the conflation of money and free speech... The worst sentiments that the Republicans have spent the last 8 years fanning ferociously will be hard to extinguish; just putting out the flames will be hard enough.
And if we think we averted the Trumpocalpse, the incentive to fix any of this will be gone, and the history that is now being made may well repeat itself with a less inept character in the starring role in 2020. Then God help us all.
Friday, September 30, 2016
After the fire
If, as now seems likely, Hilary Clinton wins the presidential election this November, she will almost certainly face a Republican Congress. She can expect little more cooperation from Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell that Obama enjoyed.
First, Congress has gotten into the habit of doing nothing; while it could be argued that they lost the White house as a result of 6 years of obstructionism, the GOP failed to reach out to minorities after the its loss in 2012, so learning doesn't seem to be its strongest suit; thus more of the same isn't off the table.
Second, much of the latent motivation for that obstructionism might be attributable to the unarticulated (until Trump) bigotry of many in the GOP. And that applies as much to women, and thus to Hilary Clinton, as racial bigotry did to Barak Obama.
Finally, another loss, particularly after all the shit-stirring Trump has done this last year, will only fuel the anger and resentment of those who feel disenfranchised and there will be still more pressure on GOP representative not to give an inch.
So we may well dodge the Trumpocalypse, but get ready for another 4 years of Congressional inaction.
First, Congress has gotten into the habit of doing nothing; while it could be argued that they lost the White house as a result of 6 years of obstructionism, the GOP failed to reach out to minorities after the its loss in 2012, so learning doesn't seem to be its strongest suit; thus more of the same isn't off the table.
Second, much of the latent motivation for that obstructionism might be attributable to the unarticulated (until Trump) bigotry of many in the GOP. And that applies as much to women, and thus to Hilary Clinton, as racial bigotry did to Barak Obama.
Finally, another loss, particularly after all the shit-stirring Trump has done this last year, will only fuel the anger and resentment of those who feel disenfranchised and there will be still more pressure on GOP representative not to give an inch.
So we may well dodge the Trumpocalypse, but get ready for another 4 years of Congressional inaction.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Clinton or Sanders
In an email from Sanders the morning I realized (belatedly) why Sanders
will fight to the bitter end. Although has been in politics most of his
adult life, he's not a career politician - he's a conviction politician.
He's driven not by opportunities for him personally but by the vision
of changing society for the better. He sees this is an inflection point,
a once in a generation opportunity to make lasting and significant
change. His goal is not the presidency, but change itself, for which the
presidency and the campaign are but a means to an end. And he has
nothing to lose by fighting on; the worst that can happen is that the
status quo prevails.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Sanders or Clinton
It looks this evening as though Clinton will have a majority of pledged delegates. It is possible that Sanders could persuade the super-delegates to come over to his side to give him the nomination, given his better polling against Trump, but this is unlikely given that the super-delegates belong to the elite that stands to loose were Sanders to push through campaign finance reform. Moreover, they have already given their pledges to Clinton, and are nervous, perhaps, that the issues that Sanders has campaigned on are a shift too far to the left.
Of course that is only one reading of the situation; another, given the overlap between Trump and Sanders on international trade and campaign finance, is that the increasingly poor, disillusioned and disenfranchised middle class are rebelling and, as one establishment figure noted tonight, flocking to the "populist" candidates. For populist read "people who don't buy the elites' argument that things are too complicated for the humble man in the street to understand - so let us get on with running things (and profiting nicely from it)". I'm not unsympathetic to Trump's remark that the Clintons have turned turned fund-raising into a self-enrichment art form.
Since the most likely scenario is that the pledged delegates won't switch sides, Clinton will be the Democratic Party's nominee in the fall. So what can Sander hope to accomplish? Just getting his issues onto the party manifesto (or "platform") is no guarantee that Clinton if she were to be elected, would act on any of it. Sanders needs leverage.
When Clinton lost to Obama eight years ago, she needed to keep on his good side since, anticipating this campaign's run, a cabinet position would look far better on her CV than another few years in the Senate - she needed that "executive experience". So she was in no position to get her pet policies into Obama's agenda (even if she had any other than "stay the course", which is far from clear to me).
Sanders on the other hand now has a brand which he didn't a year ago, and could easily mount another campaign in four years time; and he has had no support from, and therefore no obligation not to stick it to, the party establishment. That's Sander's leverage; "adopt these policies or I will challenge you again in four years" (possibly as an independent).
That's my take. It'll be nteresting to see how this plays out over the next few days.
Of course that is only one reading of the situation; another, given the overlap between Trump and Sanders on international trade and campaign finance, is that the increasingly poor, disillusioned and disenfranchised middle class are rebelling and, as one establishment figure noted tonight, flocking to the "populist" candidates. For populist read "people who don't buy the elites' argument that things are too complicated for the humble man in the street to understand - so let us get on with running things (and profiting nicely from it)". I'm not unsympathetic to Trump's remark that the Clintons have turned turned fund-raising into a self-enrichment art form.
Since the most likely scenario is that the pledged delegates won't switch sides, Clinton will be the Democratic Party's nominee in the fall. So what can Sander hope to accomplish? Just getting his issues onto the party manifesto (or "platform") is no guarantee that Clinton if she were to be elected, would act on any of it. Sanders needs leverage.
When Clinton lost to Obama eight years ago, she needed to keep on his good side since, anticipating this campaign's run, a cabinet position would look far better on her CV than another few years in the Senate - she needed that "executive experience". So she was in no position to get her pet policies into Obama's agenda (even if she had any other than "stay the course", which is far from clear to me).
Sanders on the other hand now has a brand which he didn't a year ago, and could easily mount another campaign in four years time; and he has had no support from, and therefore no obligation not to stick it to, the party establishment. That's Sander's leverage; "adopt these policies or I will challenge you again in four years" (possibly as an independent).
That's my take. It'll be nteresting to see how this plays out over the next few days.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Neoclassical referendum
The problem for both Democrats and Republicans is that this election is not about left and right, at least the way those labels have come to represent a set of cultural attitudes and values on issues like freedom and government, religion and tolerance, the right to life, and the right to bear arms. Rather it is a referendum on neoclassical economics, the free market, the invisible hand. And while both parties had become magnets for zealots on these value sets, in the process neither paid much attention to their members' views on economic issues. Now that economics have come to the fore, both parties find themselves with a mix of free marketeers and protectionists, laissez-fare and interventionists. Thirty years of a dwindling middle class, increasing economic hardship at the bottom and growing wealth and extravagance for the 1% has put values on the back burner; "it's the economy stupid".
How politicians can have ignored this for so long is a mystery. Democrats were diverted by the allure of the symbolism of a black president, who promised change (on which he delivered far less that was expected of him). Republicans thought they could avoid defeat by feeding xenophobic rhetoric to the increasingly hard-up and angry whites seeing the promise of the American dream of improving living standards and social mobility being trashed in less than a generation; and who easier to blame than immigrants and foreigners? The Republicans' conundrum was that their core message was appealing to a shrinking share of the electorate and yet to appeal more broadly would mean a message that would alienate their core (or at least contradict the narrative the fear and loathing they had been promulgating since the mid-90s).
So here were are; a referendum on the legacy of Ragan and Thatcher, on the policies of trickle-down and supply-side economics. Yet neither party has a coherent position; the establishment in both are fluent in Adam Smith and the neoclassical economics of Milton Friedman, while the base -- the "maleficiaries", those on the loosing end of what turns out to have been a zero sum, not a positive sum game -- want something more Keynesian.
Given the enormous institutional inertia of the political system, don't expect the question to be resolved this year, perhaps not even for another two or three election cycles; if then; if ever.
How politicians can have ignored this for so long is a mystery. Democrats were diverted by the allure of the symbolism of a black president, who promised change (on which he delivered far less that was expected of him). Republicans thought they could avoid defeat by feeding xenophobic rhetoric to the increasingly hard-up and angry whites seeing the promise of the American dream of improving living standards and social mobility being trashed in less than a generation; and who easier to blame than immigrants and foreigners? The Republicans' conundrum was that their core message was appealing to a shrinking share of the electorate and yet to appeal more broadly would mean a message that would alienate their core (or at least contradict the narrative the fear and loathing they had been promulgating since the mid-90s).
So here were are; a referendum on the legacy of Ragan and Thatcher, on the policies of trickle-down and supply-side economics. Yet neither party has a coherent position; the establishment in both are fluent in Adam Smith and the neoclassical economics of Milton Friedman, while the base -- the "maleficiaries", those on the loosing end of what turns out to have been a zero sum, not a positive sum game -- want something more Keynesian.
Given the enormous institutional inertia of the political system, don't expect the question to be resolved this year, perhaps not even for another two or three election cycles; if then; if ever.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
The Frankenstein Monster
The GOP is panicking. Mitt Romney was wheeled out lasts week to assail Trump, (a man whose money and endorsement he was only too happy to have 4 years ago). The irony is that they (or at least the establishment wing of the GOP) have been steadily sowing the seeds of their own destruction for at least the last 8 years. After stoking racist sentiment and mean spirited, xenophobic nationalism, Trump realized that by using the very memes the GOP had crated and pushing them past when most people thought were acceptable limits, he could outflank them on the right - which he has done very deftly. While much of his rhetoric is utterly deplorable, one must acknowledge the sophistication of his strategy.
So what happens next? The pundits seem to favour a Trump nomination, though whether the establishment can put the genie they conjured up back in the bottle is up for debate. No one really know where Trump stands on the issues since as a businessman he donated to very politician he thought me might need to further his business empire. He's been all over the map and the primary season is simple an stage for his reality publicity show. Strangely he often sounds a bit like Sarah Palin; but she wasn't acting. He could once he gets the nomination simply say "Look, this was all an act to get round the establishment gate-keepers, I'm actually a reasonable centrist".
If as now seems likely, Hilary wins for the Dems, she would then have a fight on her hands. They've been BFFs so she can't disown him; that means she's fighting on the high ground which, in the new Trumpian alternate universe, is a disadvantage. Trump can shift positions and attack her from any angle and she can't respond in kind (one only has to look at Rubio's futile attempt to see how well that will work). Does Trump need a centrist running mate? Probably not, but I suspect Christie is angling for that job, and Trump might seem him as simpatico.
Another possibility is that the GOP manages to put the genie back in the bottle. The most likely nominee would probably be Ted Cruz. Then the race looks fairly "traditional" two establishment nominees (though its interesting that one is now thinking of Rubio and Cruz as establishment when 6 years ago they were the Tea Party home-wreckers). we will then have the traditional mundane mud-slinging and all that will probably matter is party allegiance and turnout. Hilary, with a better ground game, will probably win.
Who she picks as her running mate ill matter. Assuming Bernie either isn't offered the job or turns it down, a good choice would be Liz Warren, who would bring Bernie supporters and hopefully keep Hilary from backsliding on the things she said after Bernie entered the race. Should she pick another establishment Democrat, she may well lose to Trump and might lose to Cruz and Rubio. It's going to be an interesting 9 months.
So what happens next? The pundits seem to favour a Trump nomination, though whether the establishment can put the genie they conjured up back in the bottle is up for debate. No one really know where Trump stands on the issues since as a businessman he donated to very politician he thought me might need to further his business empire. He's been all over the map and the primary season is simple an stage for his reality publicity show. Strangely he often sounds a bit like Sarah Palin; but she wasn't acting. He could once he gets the nomination simply say "Look, this was all an act to get round the establishment gate-keepers, I'm actually a reasonable centrist".
If as now seems likely, Hilary wins for the Dems, she would then have a fight on her hands. They've been BFFs so she can't disown him; that means she's fighting on the high ground which, in the new Trumpian alternate universe, is a disadvantage. Trump can shift positions and attack her from any angle and she can't respond in kind (one only has to look at Rubio's futile attempt to see how well that will work). Does Trump need a centrist running mate? Probably not, but I suspect Christie is angling for that job, and Trump might seem him as simpatico.
Another possibility is that the GOP manages to put the genie back in the bottle. The most likely nominee would probably be Ted Cruz. Then the race looks fairly "traditional" two establishment nominees (though its interesting that one is now thinking of Rubio and Cruz as establishment when 6 years ago they were the Tea Party home-wreckers). we will then have the traditional mundane mud-slinging and all that will probably matter is party allegiance and turnout. Hilary, with a better ground game, will probably win.
Who she picks as her running mate ill matter. Assuming Bernie either isn't offered the job or turns it down, a good choice would be Liz Warren, who would bring Bernie supporters and hopefully keep Hilary from backsliding on the things she said after Bernie entered the race. Should she pick another establishment Democrat, she may well lose to Trump and might lose to Cruz and Rubio. It's going to be an interesting 9 months.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
...on Super Tuesday
Cruz and Rubio are in a bit of a bind; if one drops out the other might get the nomination; but if neither do, Trump will. I don't expect either to back down. Christie looks like he's grinning and bearing it in order to be Trump's running mate, get to be Veep and then run again in 8 years if Trump is elected, or 4 if he isn't.
On the other side, Hilary looks set to get the nomination. But it may be a pyrrhic victory. Bernie's army might just pack up and go home (it's predominantly young) and not come out to vote in November. Worse still, some may even defect (in common with many of Trump's supporters, they are thoroughly fed up with the Washington establishment). That might just cost her the White House.
Batten down the hatches; the next 5 years may be highly unpredictable.
On the other side, Hilary looks set to get the nomination. But it may be a pyrrhic victory. Bernie's army might just pack up and go home (it's predominantly young) and not come out to vote in November. Worse still, some may even defect (in common with many of Trump's supporters, they are thoroughly fed up with the Washington establishment). That might just cost her the White House.
Batten down the hatches; the next 5 years may be highly unpredictable.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Don't confuse me with details
I suspect one of the reasons for Trump's popularity is apparent disdain for detail and specifics. His opponents on the GOP side and most informed pundits assumed that this will do him in in the end. The public, they reasoned, will eventually see that he has no plans only rhetoric and defect to a more solid wonkish establishment type like Rubio. This is a miscalculation.
The public isn't interested in detail for several reasons. First thinking though complexity is hard and simple sound bytes are easier to take in. Second, detail and nuance are less clear cut and thus less conformable than bright lines (like good and evil - as in "the Axis of..."). Third, when you don't like to think too hard, having someone as self-professedly-self-evidently as successful as Trump validate your choice to ignore the hard to remember / hard to think about stuff is very affirming; and the better you feel about yourself the more you approve of the person who made you feel that way. And finally, complex policy and wonkish debate is what Washington is all about, and Washington has hardly covered itself in glory these last 6 years. And as people are fed up with Congress, so too they have had enough of establishment politicians lying and playing political games while the country burns (or so says The Donald).
What voters, particularly on the GOP side, seem to want are some simple prescriptions from someone who doesn't confuse them with detail. And that's why Trump will be the GOP's candidate.
The public isn't interested in detail for several reasons. First thinking though complexity is hard and simple sound bytes are easier to take in. Second, detail and nuance are less clear cut and thus less conformable than bright lines (like good and evil - as in "the Axis of..."). Third, when you don't like to think too hard, having someone as self-professedly-self-evidently as successful as Trump validate your choice to ignore the hard to remember / hard to think about stuff is very affirming; and the better you feel about yourself the more you approve of the person who made you feel that way. And finally, complex policy and wonkish debate is what Washington is all about, and Washington has hardly covered itself in glory these last 6 years. And as people are fed up with Congress, so too they have had enough of establishment politicians lying and playing political games while the country burns (or so says The Donald).
What voters, particularly on the GOP side, seem to want are some simple prescriptions from someone who doesn't confuse them with detail. And that's why Trump will be the GOP's candidate.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Trump and the media
Wherever else one might say about Donald Trump, I can't help having a modicum of grudging admiration for his campaign, specifically the way he plays the media for fools.
The trick is this:
Perhaps the best media response was, ironically, on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert:
And he moved straight on to introduce the rest of the show.
The trick is this:
- Say something utterly outrageous
- Get interviewed on all the major television channels
- When questioned about that outrageous statement, make a completely different point
- When pressed again about that outrageous statement, make another completely different point
- (He now has gotten a minute or more of completely free air time that would otherwise have cost him millions)
- Finally, either lie, or back away from the original statement that got him the interview time.
Perhaps the best media response was, ironically, on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert:
| Colbert: | "Of course, Donald Trump had to have the last word". |
| Clip of Donald Trump: | "So I just wrote this out very quickly about the Pope - do you want to hear it"? |
| Colbert: | "No". |
And he moved straight on to introduce the rest of the show.
Protest vote
A phrase I haven't heard in a long while popped into my head a few days ago and I think it captures the current mood of US voters: it's "protest vote". It's a vote not so much for something as it is against the status quo, a vote that people know won't count in the end but provides a way for them to vent their frustration at the current state of affairs.
Trump's support falls into that category, as - if one is honest - does Sanders'. Neither really have a clear coherent plan for achieving the vision they are setting out.
That's a pity because realistically we will be left in November with a choice between two fairly similar results while Clinton and Rubio (or possibly Cruz) differ vociferously on many things neither will do anything significant on campaign finance, lobbying, the power of special interests, or health care, poverty, education, inequality and inequality of opportunity.
Something else I realized too, is that as unlikely a candidate as Sanders seems to many Americans, many of his supporters were born after the Berlin Wall fell. The visceral loathing of socialist government that the cold war stirred up is foreign to many of them, a distant echo of an older generation.
And finally, it dawned on me that the reason none of the central themes of Sander's campaign seem odd is that they were all things that Britain had when I was growing up: free higher education, universal health care and an electoral system free of the overly corrupting influence of political advertising, money, and the revolving door between the private and the public sector (at least there was a sense that where it did go on, it was improper). He's campaigning for the kind of government (pre-Maggie) I grew up with; not in the least bit extreme, just the way it was...
Trump's support falls into that category, as - if one is honest - does Sanders'. Neither really have a clear coherent plan for achieving the vision they are setting out.
That's a pity because realistically we will be left in November with a choice between two fairly similar results while Clinton and Rubio (or possibly Cruz) differ vociferously on many things neither will do anything significant on campaign finance, lobbying, the power of special interests, or health care, poverty, education, inequality and inequality of opportunity.
Something else I realized too, is that as unlikely a candidate as Sanders seems to many Americans, many of his supporters were born after the Berlin Wall fell. The visceral loathing of socialist government that the cold war stirred up is foreign to many of them, a distant echo of an older generation.
And finally, it dawned on me that the reason none of the central themes of Sander's campaign seem odd is that they were all things that Britain had when I was growing up: free higher education, universal health care and an electoral system free of the overly corrupting influence of political advertising, money, and the revolving door between the private and the public sector (at least there was a sense that where it did go on, it was improper). He's campaigning for the kind of government (pre-Maggie) I grew up with; not in the least bit extreme, just the way it was...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)