The Monday Morning Teaser

This week Kamala Harris sat for an interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle and released an 82-page report on her economic proposals. Neither of these moves satisfied the Harris-needs-to-answer-questions chorus in the media, which routinely lets Trump get away with “answers” that consist mostly of insults, lies, and long rambles about sharks.

This week I decided to stop just complaining about mainstream coverage of this campaign and offer something constructive. My proposal is that if you think Harris needs to answer more questions, you should tell us what those questions are, rather than save them for some “hard-hitting interview” you imagine doing someday. Let Harris decide for herself how she wants to provide that information to voters.

I demonstrate that approach in this week’s featured post by listing questions I think Donald Trump still needs to answer — a topic the NYT et al generally ignore. I have done my best to ask questions I think voters might actually be curious about, and to frame my questions as fairly as possible. For example, here’s a question about Trump’s plan for mass deportations: “If we deport millions of workers, how will the US economy replace them? In particular, won’t deporting low-wage workers increase inflation?”

This topic — questions not yet answered by presidential candidates — is the one big exception to the NYT’s tendency to frame every issue in a both-sides way. Only Harris, not Trump, needs to answer more questions.

That article is just about done and should appear shortly. The weekly summary covers the hurricane, Mayor Adams’ indictment, Israel’s attack on Lebanon, Trump’s race to squeeze as much money as he can out of his sheep before the election, and a few other things, before closing with a collection of memorable lines the late Maggie Smith delivered as Downton Abbey’s dowager countess. That should be out around noon.

September 30, 2024 – 8:39 am Categories: Morning tease | Post a comment

Weak institutions and special rules

I don’t think anyone can dispute either of those two points: that there’s been no coverage of Trump’s dementia comparable to the discussion of Biden’s age and that hacked Democratic campaign emails would be getting covered. That’s a different standard and one that is markedly lower for Trump. It’s that simple. It doesn’t mean that the Times hasn’t taught the public a lot about Trump. There have been a lot of revealing stories. But they are easier on Trump than on other candidates. That’s how narcissistic sociopaths work. They get weak institutions to make special rules for them.

-Doug J. Balloon (NYT Pitchbot)

This week’s featured post is “Squirrel!“

This week everybody was talking about keeping the government open

It looks like House Republicans aren’t eager to sacrifice themselves for Trump. Trump had been demanding that any deal to keep the government open include the Save Act, requiring proof of citizenship for a person to register to vote. It’s not clear what real-world problem that was supposed to solve, since non-citizen voting is already illegal and there is no evidence that law has been ineffective. But it would reinforce among the MAGA faithful the false impression that non-citizens are voting Democratic in large numbers. That, in turn, might set up all sorts of shenanigans should Trump lose again in November. Wednesday, he posted this on Truth Social:

If Republicans don’t get the SAVE Act, and every ounce of it, they should not agree to a Continuing Resolution in any way, shape, or form. Democrats are registering Illegal Voters by the TENS OF THOUSANDS, as we speak – They will be voting in the 2024 Presidential Election, and they shouldn’t be allowed to. Only American Citizens should be voting in our Most Important Election in History, or any Election!

Wednesday, however, Speaker Johnson was unable to pass such a resolution in the House, leaving him with no negotiating leverage against the Senate, where the Save Act is a non-starter. So yesterday he agreed to a clean continuing resolution that funds the government through December.

and attacks in Lebanon

Israel shifted its attention from Hamas to Hezbollah this week, with airstrikes on Lebanon and a sci-fi-like attack using exploding pagers.

and Mark Robinson

It’s time for another round of Republican limbo: North Carolina candidate for governor Mark Robinson just set the bar lower than ever, and the GOP continues to contort its moral standards to pass under it with him.

So CNN found a bunch of messages Robinson posted to a message board on the porn site Nude Africa between 2008 and 2012. (I haven’t seen them, but I am told many include disgusting images.) In the printable ones, he proclaimed himself a “black NAZI” and advocated bringing slavery back, saying “Some people need to be slaves.”

Robinson denies he posted those messages, but CNN has pretty good evidence it’s him. If he’s being framed, somebody must have started building the frame back in 2008, when Robinson was not a public figure.

Robinson was already trailing Democrat Josh Stein by 9.4%, largely because of his penchant for ridiculously inflammatory statements, like comparing transpeople to “maggots” and “flies”, telling them to “find a corner outside somewhere” rather than use a gendered bathroom, and saying that “Abortion in this country is not about protecting the lives of mothers. It is about killing the child because you weren’t responsible enough to keep your skirt down.” The posts on Nude Africa are shocking at one level, but on another level they sound like him. Whatever he says, he says bigly. David French puts it like this:

No one, however, should be surprised. Even before the primary, Robinson’s horrific character was on display. Among other things, he had called school shooting survivors who advocated gun control “media prosti-tots,” accused Michelle Obama of being a man, and trafficked in so many antisemitic tropes that his election as lieutenant governor in 2020 was an alarm bell for Jewish leaders in the state.

In other words, Republican voters knew he was a bad man when they chose him. Now they know he is a very bad man.

In the pre-Trump era, something like the Nude Africa posts would have been immediately disqualifying, and members of his own party would be demanding that Robinson leave the race. But the GOP is standing by him, because the only standard the Party has these days is loyalty to Trump, who hasn’t rescinded his ringing endorsements, like when he called Robinson “Martin Luther King on steroids“.

Instead, Trump is pretending Robinson doesn’t exist. Robinson was neither invited nor mentioned at Trump’s rally in North Carolina Saturday. But Robinson’s staff is running away en masse.

Chris Christie connects Robinson to past MAGA losers like Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania and Hershel Walker in Georgia:

This is the problem for us Republicans. As long as Donald Trump is your recruiting agent for candidates in swing states, we’re going to continue to get our rear ends handed to us.

French thinks Trump’s damage to his party goes further:

In nine years, countless Republican primary voters have moved from voting for Trump in spite of his transgressions to rejecting anyone who doesn’t transgress. If you’re not transgressive, you’re suspicious. Decency is countercultural in the Republican Party. It’s seen as a rebuke of Trump.

and the race

Since my state-of-the-race post last week, the national polls haven’t changed much: from Harris +2.7 to Harris +2.6 in the 538 average, and Harris +1.8 to Harris +2.2 in RCP. Some of the state polls look better, particularly Pennsylvania, which went from Harris +0.6 to Harris +1.3.

Trump’s response to the Harris townhall Oprah did:

When I watched her interview yesterday with a woman who is destroying, through her complete and total incompetence, America, I couldn’t help but think this isn’t the real Oprah

It’s hard to tell whether “not the real Oprah” is supposed to be metaphoric or whether he thinks she’s physically been replaced.

Heather Cox Richardson looks at the history of the Electoral College, and the persistent advantage it gives Republicans. Unlike some historians, she doesn’t attribute the origin of the EC to pro-slavery interests, but she believes pro-slavery interests made it impossible to eliminate in the 1830s. I hadn’t realized that the winner-take-all provision for each state’s electoral votes (other than Nebraska and Maine) wasn’t part of the Founders’ original vision.

and Trump’s armed stalker

It’s fascinating to me how quickly the second Trump “assassination attempt” story has come and gone, except inside the MAGA information silos.

One factor is how much less the story turned out to be than the first announcement — that shots had been fired on a course where Trump was golfing. It turned out the shots had been fired by Secret Service agents at a guy hiding in the bushes with a rifle, who never got a good look at Trump. Without the agents’ intervention, it might have turned into an assassination attempt. (So the Deep State saves the day again!) But all it really amounted to was an armed stalking.

And then there were the unnecessary conspiracy theories. Like: Trump’s round of golf wasn’t on his schedule, so how could the would-be assassin have known? It must have been an inside job! Well, cellphone records say he had been waiting in the woods for 12 hours. If you’re looking for Trump, pick out a day when he’s not campaigning and stake out his golf course. How much inside knowledge does that take?

Residents say Trump spends almost every Sunday at the West Palm Beach golf club when he is not on the campaign trail.

Then there was how quickly Trump moved to take advantage of the incident. A bunch of social media criticism went something like: “The first thing I do when someone tries to kill me is send out a fund-raising email.”

MAGA World’s attempts to “connect the dots” with the assassination attempt in Butler in July and from there link to Harris or Biden or the Deep State or some mysterious “they” were implausibly vacuous.

They are going to keep trying to kill Trump. This is only beginning. This stops only when we win in November.

The Butler guy was a conservative gun-nut who wanted to kill somebody important. Trump appears to have been a target of opportunity. Trump’s golf-course stalker is more plausibly motivated by politics, but we don’t yet know how. Neither appears to have any Biden/Harris connection.

Apparently the stalker did intend to assassinate Trump, but his motives don’t sound like they were lifted from any Democrat’s speeches.

Trump “ended relations with Iran like a child and now the Middle East has unraveled,” the letter says.

Republicans blaming Democratic rhetoric and calling for them to “tone it down” are just laughable, when Trump continues to call Harris a Communist and say at every rally that Harris and Biden are “destroying our country“. Here, in one sentence, he calls out inflammatory Democratic rhetoric while using his own:

Their rhetoric is causing me to be shot at, when I am the one who is going to save the country, and they are the ones that are destroying the country.

Trump has never once addressed the death threats his fans make against anybody who gets in his way: Judges Merchan and Chutkan, DAs Fani Willis and Alan Bragg, election workers like Shaye Moss. And he promises to pardon those convicted for committing violence in his name.

Vance complains that Democrats (truthfully) labeling Trump a “threat to democracy” is “going to get somebody killed“, but then goes on to lie about Haitians eating people’s cats.

It’s not working for them.

and how the media covers Trump

NYT reporter Maggie Haberman was interviewed on NPR Thursday, and showed real cluelessness about why her newspaper in particular and the media in general are being criticized.

I think that the media does a very good job covering Trump. … I think there is an industry, bluntly, Dave, that is dedicated toward attacking the media, especially as it relates to covering Donald Trump and all coverage of Trump. And I think that Trump is a really difficult figure to cover because he challenges news media process every day, has for years. The systems are just fundamentally – they were not built to deal with somebody who says things that are not true as often as he does or speaks as incoherently as he often does. I think the media has actually done a very good job showing people who he is, what he says, what he does. I think most of the information that the public has about Trump is because of reporting by the media. And I guess I don’t really understand how this industry that literally exists to attack the press broadly – and the media is not a monolith. It’s not a league. But this industry that exists to do that – I don’t see how they think they are a solution by undermining faith in what we do. That’s been very confusing to me. … I’m talking about criticism on the left.

James Fallows responded on X by suggesting someone at the Times address the specific criticisms people are making: like why Biden’s cognitive issues got highlighted while Trump’s are ignored, and “Why framing / headline / social-promo of stories takes a certain shape so predictably as to have given rise to the Pitchbot”.

This drew the satirical NYT Pitchbot into the discussion, which Jonathan Chait slammed as a “hacky, tin-eared comedy account”. That caused the Pitchbot’s author to drop his comedy mask and engage, making some very good points.

I don’t think anyone can dispute either of those two points: that there’s been no coverage of Trump’s dementia comparable to the discussion of Biden’s age and that hacked Democratic campaign emails would be getting covered. [The press has refused to publish the Trump emails Iran hacked.] That’s a different standard and one that is markedly lower for Trump. It’s that simple. It doesn’t mean that the Times hasn’t taught the public a lot about Trump. There have been a lot of revealing stories. But they are easier on Trump than on other candidates. That’s how narcissistic sociopaths work. They get weak institutions to make special rules for them.

I’ll add my two cents: The media in general, the NYT, and Haberman in particular have been doing a bad job covering Trump. They’ve been applying lower standards to him, for example, often covering what-he-meant rather than what-he-said, when they refused to give Biden that consideration. Lots of serious journalists like Fallows have noticed, as well as humorists like the creator of the NYT Pitchbot. It takes real arrogance to lump together the people who notice your failings and dismiss them as “an industry dedicated to attacking the media”.

and you also might be interested in …

The Federal Reserve finally has started cutting interest rates, signalling that it believes inflation is no longer a major threat to the economy.

In Brazil, Elon Musk and his X social media platform have been fighting the law. The Guardian reports: “The law appears to have won.”

The platform bowed to one of the key demands made by Brazil’s supreme court by appointing a legal representative in the country. It also paid outstanding fines and took down user accounts that the court had ordered to be removed on the basis that they threatened the country’s democracy, the New York Times reported.

Musk had been resisting removing the accounts (basically for denying that former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro had lost his reelection bid) citing his commitment to free speech. However, he only seems to resist requests from liberal democratic governments. He has been much more cooperative with the governments of Turkey and India, the article notes.

If you want to dig into the nuts-and-bolts of creating a sustainable economy, particularly how that economy will generate and distribute electric power, you should be reading David Roberts’ “Volts” blog on Substack. (Like most Substack blogs, Volts will ask you to subscribe, but let you read the content even if you don’t.)

I don’t quote Volts that often, usually because it delves deeper into the details than this blog ought to. But one recent post worth your while is his interview with Heather Boushey, a member of President Biden’s Council of Economic Advisors and the chief economist for his Invest in America Cabinet. She’s discussing the “$910 billion in announced investments all across the country in semiconductors, clean energy, manufacturing, batteries and EVs, bio-manufacturing, heavy industry, and clean power” that has come from the big bills Biden got passed before Republicans took over the House: the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS Act.

What I find interesting here is not so much the specifics as the public/private investment approach she describes. As she puts it: “Markets don’t always deliver optimal outcomes. But, on the other hand, markets are amazing.” Markets themselves are neither blind nor all-wise, but they do certain things very well. Government incentives should lay out the playing field, but private-sector players should play the game.

It seems to be working. The public investment capital is drawing in many times that much in private investment. New productive capacity is being built and jobs are being created — many of them in the parts of the country that need jobs most. The public investments are not just in basic research — a role Roberts notes that even many libertarians endorse — but in opening the bottlenecks that keep research advances from being implemented.

Interestingly, this public money is turning into the exact opposite of patronage. By targeting areas that have suffered from disinvestment and job flight, the Biden administration has wound up channeling most of this investment money to Republican counties.

and let’s close with something graphic

When I joined BlueSky, not that many people were on it yet. So the first people I followed were just about anybody I had heard of, like comic-book creator Kurt Busiek (“Astro City”). From there, by following people other people followed, I wound up with a social-media feed very different from what I see on X: odd and creative and whimsical.

That’s how I discovered Sarah Andersen. Sarah’s cartoons tend to be witchy, cat-oriented, and just slightly dark. I’ve been enjoying them.

September 23, 2024 – 1:06 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (3)

Squirrel!

Are any of Trump’s distractions worth chasing? How do we decide which ones?

Midway through his debate with Kamala Harris, Donald Trump had to have known he was losing. Trump’s debate technique relies on rattling his opponent, and Harris was clearly not rattled. She was systematically hitting the points she had set out to make, while he was allowing her to bait him into wasting his time on things voters don’t care about, like his crowd sizes or how he really didn’t lose the 2020 election. And the moderators, in contrast to his debate with Biden, were not letting him lie with impunity.

He had been insisting on — and getting — the last word on virtually every topic, which normally ought to mean that he was winning. But all he had to do was look at his opponent to realize that he wasn’t. She wanted him to keep talking, and he couldn’t stop. It wasn’t hard to imagine what the next day’s headlines would be: “Trump Loses Debate: ‘stable genius’ gets humiliated by woman ‘dumb as a rock’.” That could set the narrative of the campaign for weeks.

He couldn’t let that happen. So he used a tried and true Trump technique: He said something outrageous. That won’t be the narrative, I imagine him thinking, this will be.

Look at what’s happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don’t want to talk — not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.

And it worked, mostly. I mean, the media did notice that Harris humiliated Trump in their mano-a-womano confrontation. But that narrative didn’t stay in the headlines long. The audacity of Trump’s lie; the fact that even Republican local officials, like the mayor of Springfield and the governor of Ohio, wouldn’t back him up; the immediate destructive consequences for the town he claimed to be defending — it demanded attention. (BTW: His reference to Aurora, which he had also talked prior to the debate, was based on a false story about immigrants as well.)

The conundrum. I can’t point fingers here, because last week I also devoted a post to the Trump/Vance Springfield libel. (That post got more page views than last week’s other featured post, which analyzed what recent polls predict about Electoral College totals.) So I understand the difficult choice editors face: If you just let the libel pass, the public may imagine that there’s some kernel of truth behind it, and real people could suffer from that misperception. But if you give it a thorough debunking, you have helped Trump shift the narrative from his debate humiliation to immigration, an issue that he thinks plays in his favor.

So as a distraction, the Haitian Fright was less like the golden apples Melanion dropped in Atalanta’s path, and more like the escape tactics supervillains have used since the early days of comics: Hide a few gas bombs in a crowded area, and Batman will have more to worry about than where the Joker is vanishing to. If we all refused to take Trump’s bait, innocent people would pay the price.

Post-shame politics. Under the standards of a mere decade-or so ago, Trump’s tactic wouldn’t have worked: Being caught in an obvious and hateful lie used to shame a candidate, and his supporters as well. Headlines like “Candidate X Lies Again About Y” would sink a campaign, because voters wouldn’t want to associate themselves with the liar, or find themselves in a position where they had to defend the lie in front of their friends. Whatever advantage a candidate might gain by changing the subject would be swamped by the moral outrage his lie would call down.

But the innovation of Trump and his MAGA movement has been to transcend shame. “Grab them by the pussy” didn’t sink his 2016 campaign. “Good people on both sides” didn’t derail his administration. Probably hundreds of thousands of Americans died unnecessarily because Trump happy-talked his way through the opening months of the Covid pandemic. (“The Covid Crisis Group concluded that ‘Trump was a co-morbidity’ with Covid. Comorbidity is a medical term meaning that a patient suffers from two or more chronic diseases simultaneously.”) Yet Trump could say during the debate

We did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. … Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. We made ventilators for the entire world. We got gowns. We got masks. We did things that nobody thought possible.

The standards of truth-telling have so eroded around Trump that this blatant rewriting of recent history mostly went unnoticed.

But many of us (myself included) are having a hard time adjusting to this new world. We had always been taught that truth endures, while lies are ephemeral. But Trump has flipped that axiom of philosophy on its head: He can keep repeating a lie until fact-checkers get bored and truth-tellers collapse from exhaustion. All the while, his supporters will stand by him, reveling in the reflected glory of his victory over reality.

And yet we hope — and this is what the future of American democracy will ultimately hang on — that truth still matters somewhere around the edges of the MAGA movement. Perhaps a few percent of independents or swing voters continue to care about it. Perhaps even a handful of Republicans chafe at constantly repeating lies. (I’m looking at you, Governor DeWine. You resist the lie, but support the liar. How long can you hold that contorted position?) Maybe, in a close election, truth could still make a difference.

And yet, recent history shows that truth by itself is not enough. The American people already know Trump is a liar, just as they know many other negative things about him: He is a felon, an abuser of women, the perpetrator of numerous frauds (a fraudulent university, fraudulent foundation, fraudulent business), a racist, and much else. He has so far avoided going to trial for three of the four indictments against him, but the evidence in those indictments remains unrefuted.

Given all that, it is remarkable that only 53% of Americans report having an unfavorable opinion of the man. But will they all vote for his opponent? Unlikely.

Once, the fact that Trump is provably a bad man would have been enough to defeat him. But today, it no longer is.

This week’s squirrels. As the election approaches, the number of outrageous stories is mushrooming. As David Roberts put it:

It is getting very difficult to determine which MAGA fiasco is supposed to be a distraction from the other MAGA fiascos.

Just in the past eight days:

  • Trump tweeted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” on Truth Social. I can’t find anything to compare this to. Has any presidential candidate ever announced his HATE for a pop-culture megastar who has done nothing more objectionable than endorse his opponent?
  • Blame the Jews. Thursday, at an event that was supposed to be against antisemitism, Trump demonstrated how antisemitism works. If he loses, Trump said, “the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss”. No doubt the Proud Boys and other violent January 6 extremists are listening and will remember. Pogroms have been started for less.
  • Mark Robinson is a “black NAZI!”. Also Thursday, CNN outed Trump’s handpicked candidate for governor of North Carolina for posting wildly over-the-top stuff on a porn website’s message board back in the early 2010s. Trump has remained silent about the reports, after previously giving Robinson a speaking slot at the Convention and calling him “Martin Luther King on steroids“.
  • Legal is illegal. J. D. Vance has been calling the Haitians in Springfield “illegal aliens” even though he knows they’ve got temporary protected status under the law. Wednesday, he acknowledged that, but said he’s going to keep calling them “illegal” anyway. This is all part of keeping the cat-eating lie going. (Oh, and this is trivia, but it sticks in my craw: Vance said “Haitia” (HAY-sha) instead of “Haiti”. Imagine if Biden had done that.)

And I still feel like I’m missing something. It would be easy to spend the week talking about nothing else.

What we’re being distracted from. I hear lots of frustration from Harris supporters (but not from Harris or Walz) about how anyone can still be on the fence in this election. How can anyone with sense and a conscience even consider voting for this guy, or even staying home on election day?

But let’s put that frustration aside and face the fact: Something like 5-10% of people either still haven’t made up their minds or aren’t willing to tell pollsters what they’ve decided. The key to winning this election, for either side, lies with convincing those people or making their support firm enough to get them out to vote.

Getting frustrated at them isn’t likely to move them in our direction. Also, the fact that Donald Trump is a vile person has been well covered. As I’ve already noted, he’s a felon, a fraudster, a scam artist, a race baiter, an abuser of women, and all sorts of other things. MAGA types deny all that, but I don’t think they’re fooling a lot of people outside their bubble. People know, they just don’t care. Hitting that point harder also isn’t going to move them.

Here’s how I picture the maybe-Trump voter: They’re mainly motivated by pre-pandemic nostalgia. They knew in 2019 that Trump was a vile person, but it didn’t seem to matter. They were doing fine and felt like the country was doing fine. If electing him again would bring that back, that sounds good.

Meanwhile, a lot of bad stuff has happened since 2019. Yeah, a bunch of that stuff happened in 2020 under Trump, but it’s easy to overlook that. Life has been disrupted, and the most visible disruption is that there was a lot of inflation in from 2021 to 2023. It’s largely over now, but the cumulative effect is still with us.

The economy. The argument against that view is a little complicated, and is hard to get people to pay attention to: The pandemic had two main effects around the world: a surge in unemployment before vaccines were available (under Trump), and a surge of inflation afterward (under Biden) as the money governments created to keep people fed, housed, and out of bankruptcy hit the reopening post-vaccine economy.

Trump doesn’t usually get blamed for the job losses, but Biden does get blamed for the inflation. Neither should be: Those two tidal waves hit the whole world, not just the US, and the US has surfed those waves better than any other economy. No other country has gotten its jobs back and tamed the post-vaccine inflation as quickly as we have.

It’s a tricky message to communicate: The economy still isn’t wonderful, but the Biden/Harris administration has done a great job managing it through a difficult stretch.

That message needs to be coupled with a simpler message: Everything Trump is proposing will make the economy worse. His high tariffs will raise prices not just on everything we import, but on American products that compete with imported products. Deporting millions of people will make it hard for businesses to find workers, which will also raise prices, as well as constrict the economy in other ways.

In short, putting Trump back in the White House won’t make it 2019 again. The pandemic really happened, and the effects will still be here.

Non-economic messages. Trump is relying on the complexity of the economic situation to keep voters bamboozled, but the squirrels are supposed to keep them from noticing more obvious things

  • Women are dying because of the abortion bans he made possible. ProPublica recently put names on two of the corpses Trump is responsible for: Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller. Harris supports legislation to restore the pre-Dobbs status quo. If your 2019 nostalgia extends to how abortion was handled, Harris will bring that back
  • A second Trump administration will be far more autocratic than the first. Project 2025 (which Trump denied responsibility for after it became unpopular) outlines the plans in detail. But even if you don’t believe Trump will follow that plan, the general outlines are clear: His first administration started out staffed by generic Republicans who were constantly telling him that he couldn’t do illegal things. By the end of his term, he had gotten rid of most of those people, which is how the January 6 insurrection happened. His second administration will be staffed by people like Kash Patel, who will do whatever he tells them. And he will enter a second term with a Supreme Court guarantee of immunity from subsequent prosecution, so if a staffer does have the temerity to tell him his orders are illegal, he can tell them to jump in a lake.
  • Harris believes in democracy and the rule of law, but Trump does not. Trump believes in the rule of Trump. Harris will obey laws and court orders. She will accept the results of elections, even if she doesn’t like them.
  • Harris believes in science. Trump believes in whatever is convenient. The worst of Covid is behind us, but we’re in an era where pandemics are becoming more frequent. If another one hits in the next four years, we’ll be better off with Harris in the White House, because she will face reality rather than try to happy-talk through it.
  • Harris will continue fighting climate change. Trump will undo everything Biden has done to fight climate change. “Drill, baby, drill” is a recipe for stronger hurricanes, bigger wildfires, and unlivable temperatures in much of the United States. Climate change around the world will bring more refugees to our borders. Trying to hang on to the dying fossil fuel economy will put us behind the rest of the world, especially China.
  • Dictators are not our friends. Trump admires and wants to be like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. He would give Ukraine to Putin and endanger NATO allies like Poland.

Handling the squirrels. Before you react, ask yourself if there are real victims, like the Haitains of Springfield. If there aren’t, make sure you don’t get too distracted from the points above.

In general, we should notice the squirrels, bookmark them, and be ready to show them to people who need to see them, like undecided Swifties and Jews who think Trump’s support of Israel cancels out his overall antisemitism. But let’s not pound on them. As a lead argument, Trump-is-vile won’t persuade the people we need to be persuading.

September 23, 2024 – 11:56 am Categories: Articles | Comments (13)

Tagged |

The Monday Morning Teaser

I am resisting the temptation to do a whole week’s worth on the MAGA-is-crazy theme. There’s just so much to work with this week: They’re still pushing the eating-cats-in-Springfield lie, Vance says he’ll keep calling Springfield’s Haitians “illegal” even though he knows they’re not, Mark Robinson is a “black NAZI!”, Trump HATES TAYLOR SWIFT, he’ll blame the Jews if he loses, “he couldn’t help but think” the woman who hosted a townhall for Kamala “isn’t the real Oprah”, and the (non-existent) debate audience “went crazy” when he was fact-checked. Even at that, I feel like I missed something.

But I’m beginning to think people like me are supposed to go down that rabbit hole. For reasons I don’t fully understand, the voters who still haven’t been convinced to vote for Kamala are unmoved by the Trump-is-a-horrible person arguments, so we’re being shown one red cape after another to get us to charge.

So this week’s featured post is called “Squirrel!”, and considers the question of which stories to chase and how long to focus on them. What are the more substantive issues we’re being distracted from, and how should we be talking about them?

That should be out between 10 and 11, followed by the weekly summary noonish, which discusses the government staying open, the exploding pagers, Mark Robinson (in detail this time), the state of the race, the quick passing of the second-assassination-attempt story, the interest-rate cut, Musk backing down to Brazil, and a few other things.

September 23, 2024 – 8:38 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (8)

Positive Influences

Haitians are — culturally, my wife Fran and I have seen this when we’ve been down in Haiti — education is prized. So when you look at all of these things, people who want to work, people who value their kids, who value education, you know, these are positive influences on our community in Springfield, and any comment about that otherwise, I think, is hurtful and is not helpful to the city of Springfield and the people of Springfield.

– Mike DeWine, Republican Governor of Ohio

This week’s featured posts are “Where the race stands” and “Lessons from the Haitian Fright“.

This week everybody was talking about the debate

One featured post discusses where the race stands post-debate. This note is just about the debate itself. [video, transcript]

All week, MAGA has been throwing stuff at the wall to try to explain how their God-Hero got completely outclassed by a Black woman he has claimed is “dumb as a rock“. So far I’ve heard:

  • It didn’t happen. Trump actually won. But apparently that story wasn’t convincing even in MAGA-World, so they also had to come up with explanations for Trump’s defeat.
  • The moderators were against him. It wasn’t fair to fact-check him more just because he lied more frequently and more outrageously than Harris. Moderators should have sat there stone-faced when Trump claimed babies are being executed after birth, immigrants in Ohio are eating dogs and cats, or that Trump was being “sarcastic” when he admitted that he had lost the 2020 election.
  • Kamala must have gotten the questions ahead of time. Obviously there is no way Harris could have anticipated that she would be asked about inflation, abortion, immigration …
  • Kamala’s earring was really an earphone. I suspect this claim is motivated by jealousy. Trump’s handlers wish he had been wearing an earphone, so they could have kept yelling “Forget about crowd sizes! Get back to inflation!”
  • Kamala was using witchcraft. Seriously. Lance Wallnau, the so-called “father of American Dominionism” detected the “occult empowered deception, manipulation, and domination” on Harris’ side, and believes that “something supernatural needs to disrupt this counterfeit momentum”. Clearly we need to throw her in a lake and see if she floats. This theory has one advantage over all the others: It explains why Trump floundered. (How could Harris knowing the questions cause Trump to sound like a raving lunatic?) But if Kamala is secretly the reincarnation of Marie Laveau — I can sort of see a resemblance — it all makes sense. He rambled and told outrageous lies not because he’s old and his brain never did work very well, but because she cast a spell of confusion on him. [BTW: MAGA really should thank me for doing that bit of historical research. If it catches on, we’ll know they read the Sift.]

Trump managed to pull a bunch of that together into this totally sane and rational Truth Social post:

ABC FAKE NEWS has been completely discredited, and is now under investigation. Did they give Comrade Kamala the questions? It was 3 on 1, but they were mentally challenged people, against one person of extraordinary genius. It wasn’t even close, as is now reflected in the polls. I WON THE DEBATE!

About the polls … well, no, they don’t say Trump won the debate. But why would Trump start telling the truth at this late date?

My favorite post-debate meme went something like: “No wonder Trump thinks Harris is a Marxist. She just publicly owned him.”

Trump has taken a lot of well-deserved ridicule for claiming to have only “concepts of a plan” on healthcare. (He’s been using that phrase at least since 2019.) Paul Krugman explains what’s going on here: The “phenomenal” healthcare plan Trump has been vaguely discussing since 2015 provides affordable coverage to all Americans. But there are really only two ways to do this:

  1. The government insures people directly, as in Bernie’s Medicare for All proposal.
  2. The government subsidizes private insurance, as in ObamaCare.

Trump has repeatedly said these options are both “disasters“, so he’s stuck. He can fantasize about having an all-singing all-dancing program that solves everybody’s problems. But there’s no way to flesh out that fantasy, so it never develops beyond a “concept”.

BTW: Trump’s “concepts of a plan” flashed me back to a party scene in “Annie Hall”, where you overhear some random guest saying: “Right now it’s only a notion, but I think I can get money to make it into a concept, and later turn it into an idea.”

The eating-cats-and-dogs thing grew into its own featured post.

and shots fired on Trump’s golf course

We don’t know much yet. Sunday, Secret Service agents clearing the hole ahead of Trump spotted a gun barrel in the bushes. They engaged a man who ran away. Reportedly, shots were fired, but whether any were fired by the man in the bushes or just by the agents is unclear. Trump was unharmed. The man, a White American, is now in custody. He appears to be strongly pro-Ukraine, but it’s not clear whether that was his motive in stalking Trump.

Trump supporters online have been irresponsibly linking this apparent assassination attempt to the previous attempt, and blaming both on a mysterious “them”. Here’s Marjorie Taylor Greene:

They are trying to kill him!!! They will do anything to stop him from winning.

As a firmly anti-Trump liberal, let me say this: I don’t want him killed and I’m glad nothing came of this attempt. I want Trump discredited, not dead. I want to see him defeated in the election, and I want him to get fair trials on his indictments. If he does go to trial again, I will be rooting for him to be convicted and sentenced to jail. But I don’t want him killed. A Trump assassination would probably only unleash something worse on America.

and Laura Loomer

I’ve decided not to touch the rumors that Trump and Loomer are having an affair. Too often, when a woman rises to some form of prominence, hostile people claim she must be using sex somehow. It’s wrong when Trump says it about Harris, and it’s wrong here too.

But I don’t need to lose my PG-13 rating to criticize Loomer, or to criticize Trump for associating with her. Last week, Loomer responded to a Kamala Harris tweet celebrating her Indian grandparents with a blatantly racist post:

If @KamalaHarris wins, the White House will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center and the American people will only be able to convey their feedback through a customer satisfaction survey at the end of the call that nobody will understand.

That was too racist even for Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lindsey Graham. Always quick to take the high road, Loomer responded to Graham by asking him when he was going to come out of the closet.

The Bulwark’s Sam Stein observed that if Republicans are worried about Trump being influenced by a conspiracy theorist, that ship sailed a long time ago. He provided a long list of Trump-promoted conspiracy theories going back to Vince Foster’s suicide and questioning whether Osama bin Laden had really been killed.

Marcy Wheeler points out that the Loomer problem is the same as the Putin problem: Trump can be manipulated by flattery.

The problem isn’t Laura Loomer. She’s little different than all the other extremists who remain in Trump’s good graces by performing near-perfect sycophancy. The problem is precisely what Tim Walz warned: Trump’s narcissism and his ego make him weak, vulnerable to any person willing to use flattery to win their objectives. Trump’s aides are making the same argument Tim Walz is: that Trump doesn’t have the self-control to protect against extremists making him their ready tool.

and you also might be interested in …

Just in case you had any doubt that Trump takes everything personally, he posted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” to Truth Social Sunday morning. I love the response from never-Trump Republican Rick Wilson:

Invading Moscow in the winter, fighting a land war in Asia, and going up against the Swifties. These are well regarded as key strategic mistakes in history.

And speaking of Taylor, I am struck speechless by Elon Musk’s offer to “give you a child and guard your cats with my life”. Usually when I see some outrageous statement, I can imagine some situation or some state of mind where I might be tempted to say something similar. But I’ve got nothing here. I have no idea what Elon could have been thinking.

In my post about the Haitian Fright, I forgot to mention a Chicago hotdog shop’s attempt to make commercial hay out of the controversy:

Don’t have time to read the Project 2025 manual? Listen to the song instead.

Various people have speculated that Republicans drummed up the Springfield pet-eating story to distract from something else. Here’s one possibility: The Republican candidate running against Sherrod Brown for the Senate has been lying about selling off his business interests, and also about having an MBA.

But I find myself agreeing with David Roberts:

It is getting very difficult to determine which MAGA fiasco is supposed to be a distraction from the other MAGA fiascos.

and let’s close with something visual

Some while ago I did a closing featuring a Dad who photoshopped his kids. It seems he’s still at it. Here we see a demonstration of a basic principle of physics: Actions produce equal and opposite reactions.

September 16, 2024 – 12:40 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (4)

Where the race stands

The conventions and probably the only Harris/Trump debate are behind us now.
Can we say who’s winning?

The story so far. Last September, President Joe Biden started falling behind former President Donald Trump in the polls , and then their debate in June made the situation worse. As of July 19, The Hill’s polling average had Trump ahead by 3.3% — not a certain loss for Biden, but hardly an encouraging situation. Then on July 21, Biden withdrew from the race in favor of his vice president, Kamala Harris.

Many observers, including me, had predicted that replacing Biden would produce chaos, possibly turning a difficult race into an impossible one. That prediction looks silly now. (My own failures are one reason why I discourage taking speculation seriously.) In fact, no other major Democrat showed an interest in contesting for the nomination, and the Democratic Party quickly united behind Harris.

Everything has gone well for Harris since then. Her ascension to the top of the ticket produced a huge wave of excitement and a corresponding outpouring of both volunteer commitments and financial contributions. Her choice of Tim Walz as VP has been popular. To Trump’s consternation, the Democratic Convention was watched by more people than his Republican Convention, and Harris’ well-constructed and well-delivered acceptance speech contrasted favorably with his record-long 92-minute ramble. Tuesday, Harris dominated Trump in a one-on-one debate. (More on the debate in the following post.)

After all that, you might imagine she would be far ahead, but not so. In The Hill’s polling average, she has almost exactly the same lead Trump had over Biden: 3.4%. 538 has the race even closer: 2.7%.

The Electoral College. If all Harris had to do was win the popular vote, things would be looking pretty good for her. But due to the Constitutional Convention, whose motives are still hotly debated, the United States elects its president through an electoral college in which every state gets at least three votes, with more depending on population. That has always produced a bias towards the small states, and in the current era it gives Republicans a consistent advantage. In 2000 and 2016 that advantage was decisive, as Republicans won the presidency with fewer votes than their Democratic opponents. These Republican victories have had consequences: the Iraq War, a long delay in our government recognizing climate change, and the 6-3 partisan majority on the Supreme Court, just to name the most obvious ones.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% and lost; in 2020 Joe Biden got 4.5% more votes and won. But an across-the-board shift of .63% in Trump’s favor would have flipped Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, producing a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. (.63% was the margin in Wisconsin, the other two were closer.) The election would have gone to the House, where each state gets one vote and Republicans held a 26-23-1 advantage. In short, if Biden had only won the popular vote by 3.8%, Trump would be president.

In 2016, a .77% shift towards Hillary would have flipped Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, giving her the election. So a Clinton 2.9% victory would have been enough.

So it’s a reasonable guess that a 2.5% Harris victory wouldn’t be enough, but a 4% victory would.

State polls. Almost everyone believes that a Trump victory is secure in 23 states with 187 electoral votes, while a Harris win is reliable in 17 states (actually 16 plus DC) with 203 electoral votes. That leaves 11 with uncertain results, plus singleton electoral votes in Maine and Nebraska, which allocate a vote to each of their congressional districts.

Some of those “uncertain” states have a definite lean, and would only go the other way in a national rout. So an average of recent polls has Harris up 6.7% in New Hampshire and 8.0% in Virginia, while every recent poll of New Mexico has Harris up at least 5%. Trump is up 4.3% in Florida, which is hardly insurmountable, but still significant. If you allocate those votes, Harris is ahead 225-217.

That leaves the generally accepted list of “battleground” states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, plus the two singletons. Polling is unreliable for the singletons, but Harris is leading in both, so let’s go to 227-217, while making a note to be suspicious of a conclusion that has Harris winning by 2 EVs or less. Here are the 538 polling averages in the remaining states:

Wisconsin (10 EV): Harris +2.6
Michigan (15): Harris +1.5
Pennsylvania (19): Harris +0.6
Nevada (6): Harris +0.3
North Carolina (16): Trump +0.5
Arizona (11): Trump +0.7
Georgia (16): Trump +0.7

Winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania gives Harris 271, so she would need at least one of the singletons. A shift of 0.8% in her direction and she sweeps the battleground states. A shift of 0.7% against her and Trump becomes president again.

Now you have some idea how close things really are.

Campaign strategies. The two campaigns are not approaching the battleground states equally. The Trump campaign is focusing its spending on a narrow path to 270 (or perhaps only 269), believing it mainly needs to win Georgia and Pennsylvania. (So far, they do not seem to take seriously the possibility of losing North Carolina.)

Meanwhile the Harris campaign understands that its most direct path to victory consists of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But they are also putting significant resources into Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina.

Intangibles. Now we’re into speculation, which I’ve already discouraged you from doing. Going forward, I believe Democrats have an intangible advantage in this campaign based on a simple fact: We have better candidates. I mean this in terms of basic political skills. Day-in, day-out from here to Election Day, I think that Harris and Walz will give better speeches, do better interviews, connect better face-to-face, and make better commercials than Trump and Vance. We saw that in the debate, and I think it will continue.

Also, Harris is reality-based and Trump is not. Trump’s people are afraid to tell him unpleasant facts, and this will cause him to make bad decisions down the stretch. The Harris campaign will consistently get more out of its resources, because the Trump campaign has always been at least partially a grift, holding events at Trump properties and booking ads through Trump-favored firms.

Democrats have spent far more money on their ground game than Republicans, who have focused more on mythical election fraud than on getting out the vote.

In all recent cycles we’ve seen election-day surprises, as the vote totals failed to match the polls. In 2016 and 2020, those polling errors favored Republicans, but in 2022 they favored Democrats. This year, it may all come down to voters who make up their minds in the voting booth. And here, I think the diminishing enthusiasm for Trump will take its toll. In 2016 he was the exciting candidate. (Wouldn’t it be a hoot to see him as president?) But in 2024 he’s the boring candidate, the one who talks endlessly about his own grievances and grudges. His constant appeals to anger and hate are exhausting.

My hunch — based on nothing but my own intuition, which has failed before — is that large numbers of Americans will go into the voting booth and think “This could all be over.”

September 16, 2024 – 11:36 am Categories: Articles | Comments (17)

Tagged |

Lessons from the Haitian Fright

Many Americans are ready to believe and pass on any horrifying rumor they hear about non-White immigrants, without checking their sources or looking too hard at the evidence. Trump, Vance, and other Republican politicians have been eager to exploit this gullibility.

The Simpsons is set in Springfield because there are 35 Springfields in various states, including five in Wisconsin alone. So wherever you live, the Simpson house might be just down the road. Given this near-universality, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Trump/Vance lies about the Springfield in Ohio have grabbed public attention on both sides of our political divide. If immigrants really are stealing and eating pets in Springfield, your pets may be in danger too. Conversely, if Trump can tell such a baseless and vicious lie about Springfield, he could just as easily lie about your town, your neighbors, or even you.

It’s important to be clear from the beginning: He is lying. Everybody from the local police to the city manager to the Republican governor of Ohio has denied this pernicious internet rumor, which is a lesson in how easy it is to create “evidence” for anything. (Here’s a photo that purports to show a Haitian in Springfield carrying off two geese, presumably to eat. Actually it’s a non-Haitian in Columbus, removing two road-kill geese from the pavement.)

Lots of articles trace the rumor through right-wing sources that invented it, so I’ll cover that history only briefly: The influx of legal Haitian immigrants in recent years had created discomfort among some White Springfield citizens. During Covid, city services got stretched — as services did nearly everywhere — and some locals blamed the Haitians. In any large group, somebody will eventually do something wrong; last year, an unlicensed Haitian driver killed an 11-year-old boy (whose parents have begged the public not to use their son’s death to fan hatred). That created an exploitable opportunity for neo-Nazi groups like Blood Pride, which began targeting Springfield with negative disinformation about the immigrants. From there, stories multiplied until the eating-dogs-and-cats rumor got started. It spread mainly online, and not so much by word-of-mouth in Springfield itself. Then J. D. Vance picked it up, from which it got to Trump.

If you want more detail, I can recommend a post on Justin Ling’s blog Bug-Eyed and Shameless, which relates the story to the Irish Fright of 1688, when tens of thousands of panicked Englishmen barricaded bridges and crossroads to stop the advance of marauding Irish troops, who in fact did not exist.

The Irish Fright didn’t make it into my high-school history texts, but maybe it should have. There’s a lot to learn from what what 19th-century historian Charles Mackay famously dubbed “extraordinary popular delusions“.

How racism manifests. To begin with, the Haitian Fright of 2024 provides a teaching opportunity about racism. I am constantly seeing accounts from White people online and on television, who believe they are not racist because they don’t internally experience what they imagine racism to be: a blind and senseless hatred of other races. “I don’t hate anyone,” they claim, and believe that they are telling the truth.

But the Haitian Fright points out a more subtle and widespread kind of racism: a propensity to believe (and even pass on) negative stories about other races without requiring evidence. A sudden influx of Scots or Danes could have put just as big a strain Springfield’s schools and hospitals, but I doubt we’d be hearing stories about them eating cats.

A similar lesson can be drawn from the Birther controversy of the Obama years (where Trump also was a major player). Many Whites were eager to believe that Barack Obama wasn’t a legitimate president, so they credited any justification for that belief, no matter how flimsy. The birther story served to mediate their racism: They could deny that they disapproved of Obama’s presidency because he was Black, and instead disapprove because he wasn’t really an American. But they believed that evidence-free claim because he was Black.

Myths about immigration. Similarly, many Americans claim that they don’t object to immigrants per se, but only to illegal immigrants. If people would only come to America “the right way, like my ancestors did”, they would be welcomed.

Personally, my ancestors arrived in the United States from Germany in the mid-1800s. And yes, they did come “the right way”, but at the time there was no wrong way. Other than occasional quarantines for health reasons, the US had few restrictions on immigration prior to the openly racist Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

You know who else is here the right way? The Haitians in Springfield. They qualify for a program known as “temporary protected status“, which provides legal status to people from countries which (because of either natural disaster or political unrest) are not safe to return to. Others came “as part of a parole program that allows citizens and lawful residents to apply to have their family members from Haiti come to the United States”.

And Springfield is lucky to have them. Governor DeWine said yesterday:

Here’s what we do know, though. What we know is that the Haitians who are in Springfield are legal. They came to Springfield to work. Ohio is on the move, and Springfield has really made a great resurgence with a lot of companies coming in. The Haitians came in to work for these companies. What the companies tell us is that they are very good workers. They’re happy to have them there. And frankly, that has helped the economy.

This matches an observation Deborah and James Fallows made in their book Our Towns, about their travels across America, particularly in the section about Dodge City, Kansas: One key difference between small towns that are dying and those that are thriving is that the thriving towns are welcoming immigrants rather than discouraging them.

Governor DeWine had previously mentioned his own trips to Haiti and observed:

[I]n Haiti education is prized. So when you look at all of these things, people who want to work, people who value their kids, who value education, you know, these are positive influences on our community in Springfield, and any comment about that otherwise, I think, is hurtful and is not helpful to the city of Springfield and the people of Springfield.

In short, whatever you may think you want out of immigrants — legal status, work ethic, family values … anything other than white skin and speaking English since birth — the Haitians of Springfield have it.

Another complaint I’ve run into is that the Biden administration “sent” the Haitians to Springfield. Here’s J. D. Vance:

Kamala Harris dropped 20,000 Haitian migrants into a small Ohio town and chaos has ensued.

But like any person with legal status in the US, the Haitians can go where they like. They weren’t “sent” or “dropped”, they came to Springfield looking for work and a low cost of living.

Thousands of new jobs had been created [in Springfield], thanks to a successful effort by the city’s leadership and Chamber of Commerce to attract new business to Springfield, which sits between Columbus and Dayton. Once a manufacturing hub, Springfield saw its economy shrink after factories closed and jobs migrated overseas. By about 2015, its population had dwindled to under 60,000, from about 80,000 in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Companies that set up shop, however, confronted a dire labor shortage.

Haitians in Florida, Haiti and South America heard from friends and family about Springfield and its need for workers. They began arriving to take jobs in warehouses, manufacturing and the service sector, and employers urged the new workers to encourage other Haitians to join them.

We often hear how jarring it must be for a town of 60,000 to accommodate 15,000-or-so new residents. But few note that the immigrants are simply restoring Springfield to its historic size. They are making Springfield great again.

Consequences. History teaches that lies can lead to violence, particularly when they make a group of people seem monstrous or subhuman. The pet-eating lie has been likened to the blood libel against Jews, which often circulated prior to pogroms. According to the libel, Jews needed the blood of Christian children to ritually prepare matzah for Passover. So any child who went missing prior to Passover could spark a bloody attack on a town’s Jews.

Often associated with the Middle Ages, a blood libel pogrom happened as recently as 1946 in Poland. Forty-two newly returned Holocaust survivors were killed.

The pet-eating lie has not yet led to any murders in Springfield. But a series of bomb threats followed Trump’s outburst at Tuesday’s debate. City hall had to be shut down on Thursday. Friday, a middle school closed and two elementary schools had to be evacuated. Saturday, two hospitals went into lockdown. Two local colleges have temporarily shut down in-person classes. I can only imagine the bullying that Haitian children are experiencing in schools all over the country.

Thank you, Mr. Trump.

Trump has expressed no remorse and repeated the lie Friday in California, long after it had been widely debunked. On talk shows Sunday, J. D. Vance simultaneously acknowledged that the stories are false while justifying his own role in continuing to spread them.

On Sunday, Ohio’s junior senator was pressed by journalists as to why the Trump campaign was spreading a claim it could provide no evidence for beyond the anecdotal “I heard it on television” excuse Trump himself gave during the debate.

On CNN, he seemingly admitted that his claims were lies, then continued by saying that he would keep spreading such tales, even knowing them to be untrue, if they resulted in the media talking about issues he claimed were still just as real despite the deception.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” said the senator.

It is worth pointing out that even though non-citizens can’t vote, anyone legally in the State of Ohio is Vance’s constituent. (That’s why congressional districts are distributed according to total population rather than the number of citizens, a provision Republicans are trying to overturn.) He has a responsibility to them whether he recognizes it or not.

Vance’s interviews point out something else: He and Trump are often accused of “falling for” the pet-eating lie, as if the problem were simply their gullibility in the face of an internet conspiracy theory. But they haven’t fallen for anything. They looked for a hateful lie they could tell about immigrants, and they found one.

What is a joke? The internet is now full of cat-and-dog-eating memes, most of which are intended to be humorous. Both sides are spreading them with very different motives. For Democrats, the lie is so unbelievable that people who are taken in by it deserve to be laughed at. That’s why many of my liberal friends have shared The Kiffness’ musical version of Trump’s debate lines. The song doesn’t explicitly criticize Trump, but does make him seem ridiculous.

Meanwhile, Republicans are indulging in bully-humor, as they so often do. By posting a cat-eating meme with three laugh-till-I-cry emojis, Ted Cruz can promote cruelty towards immigrants while hiding behind a veneer of comedy. When challenged, he is undoubtedly saying, “It’s a joke! Doesn’t anybody have a sense of humor any more?”

The problem, of course, is that not everyone agrees that it’s a joke. Many on the internet still take the Haitian Fright seriously, and virtually no Republicans are condemning Trump for promoting it. (Even Governor DeWine has stopped short of faulting Trump or specifically asking him to stop.) And even if they did agree, jokes can still be cruel.

As for the liberal memes, I have changed my mind several times. Yes, Trump deserves to be ridiculed for this. And yet I find myself agreeing with media studies scholar Whitney Phillips:

While Phillips said she doesn’t begrudge people “having fun online,” she warned that liberals who think they’re cutting Trump down to size risk giving oxygen to a trope that ultimately plays into his hands — and endangers the Haitians who were its original targets.

“When you’re making a joke using the frame” of immigrants as cultural invaders, she said, even if you’re pushing back on it, “the frame is still amplified.”

September 16, 2024 – 9:52 am Categories: Articles | Comments (8)

Tagged , , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

One of these weeks, I’m going to make a plan for what I’m going to talk about and then carry it out. Ever since the conventions ended, I’ve been planning to write a state-of-the-race article. But something else always comes up: Trump desecrates Arlington National Cemetery, or Georgia election officials lay the groundwork for another January 6, or something.

This week, an apparent Trump assassination attempt broke too late for me to say anything substantive about it, but the eating-dogs-and-cats thing was just impossible to ignore. So I’ll just have to double up: the state-of-the-race post will come out later this morning, maybe around 11 EDT.

But I also found an interesting slant on the Springfield dogs-and-cats story: The Bug-Eyed and Shameless blog draws a parallel to the Irish Fright of 1688, when tens of thousands of Englishmen became convinced that rogue Irish troops from the British army were marauding through England, destroying everything in their path. Spontaneous militias barricaded bridges and crossroads, waiting for rampaging Irishmen who only existed in their imaginations.

It turns out that disinformation can spread and start a panic even without the internet.

Anyway, I think there’s a lot to be learned from Americans’ propensity to believe bizarre and scary things about non-White immigrants. I’ll collect some in “Lessons from the Haitian Fright”. I’ll try to get it out soon. The state-of-the-race article will follow, and then the weekly summary, which will review the Harris-Trump debate, what little we know about the shots fired in Trump’s vicinity, the Laura Loomer thing, and a few other notes. I’m aiming to have that out by noon, but it may run later.

September 16, 2024 – 8:41 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (5)

Inaction

We did nothing.

– Donald J. Trump,
summing up his accomplishments on the issue of gun violence

This week’s featured post is “The Word of the Week: Sanewashing“.

This week everybody was talking about tomorrow night’s debate

I’m not going to say much about this because I’m trying not to think about it. It will happen, I can’t influence the outcome, and by Wednesday morning we’ll know how it went. Kamala Harris is smarter and sharper, but a shameless liar always has a puncher’s chance in these things, especially when moderators refuse to fact-check, as they did in the Trump-Biden debate.

Recent polls have Harris up nationally by 2.8%, according to the 538 polling average. Given the Electoral College’s thumb on the scale, that’s a toss-up. Hillary’s popular-vote margin of 2.1% wasn’t quite enough, but Biden’s 4.5% definitely was. Democrats hold a similar 2.6% edge in congressional generic ballot polls.

The Electoral College shames our country. Twice in this century, it has allowed the candidate who got the second-most votes to claim the presidency. People only support the Electoral College to rationalize the unfair advantage it gives their side. Can you imagine how Trump would scream if he got more votes than his opponent, but still lost the election?

I’ve decided not to do a state-of-the-race post until after the debate. But here’s Ruben Bolling’s account of the campaign so far.

and Russia, Russia, Russia

We all know that “the Big Lie” is Trump’s claim that he really won the 2020 election, and his victory was stolen from him by fraud. But a lie of similar size is his claim that “Russia, Russia, Russia” was a hoax cooked up by his enemies, and that investigations like the Mueller Report “cleared” him of wrongdoing. (This is covered in Chapter 1 of Steve Benen’s new book “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, reality, and the Republicans’ war on the recent past“.)

John Durham’s sham investigation of “the Russia hoax” went on longer than the Mueller investigation, and came up empty when juries quickly dismissed two prosecutions against minor characters in its conspiracy theory. The “crime of the century” Trump advertised was never revealed.

This week we got a reminder that Russia has never stopped trying to promote the American right wing. An indictment released Wednesday charges that the Russian state media company RT funneled $10 million through an American company (obviously Tenet Media, though the indictment does not name the company) to fund right-wing influencers online.

The people who ultimately got the money are all claiming they were duped, and had no idea Russia was funding their work. Author Renée DiResta observes:

Buying authentic influencers is a far better use of funds than creating fake personas, because they bring their own trusting audiences and are actually, you know, real.

The Democratic Mormon X-account Dem Saints notes “The irony of calling Kamala a communist while cashing Russian checks.”

and the Georgia school shooting

Wednesday, a 14-year-old brought an AR-type weapon to Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia and began shooting, killing four and wounding nine. He has been charged with murder and will be tried as an adult. His father faces manslaughter and other charges for providing the gun “with knowledge [his son] was a threat to himself and others.”

I’m not sure how I feel about either of those prosecuting decisions. No matter what he’s done, a 14-year-old is not an adult. And the father deserves consequences of some sort, but manslaughter seems a bit much. More punishment is not the solution to every problem.

Gun violence (like climate change) is one issue where the difference between the two parties is stark. Kamala Harris responded: “It doesn’t have to be this way.” Meanwhile, J. D. Vance said: “This is a fact of life.” Donald Trump called the shooter “a sick and deranged monster“, as if the important issue for a leader to address is how to assess blame. In the past he has said “We have to get over it, we have to move forward.“, as if school shootings are acts of God with no policy implications.

Another Republican response came from Governor Kemp:

This is not the day to talk about safety or policy. We need thoughts and prayers for the victims, law enforcement, and educators.

For Kemp, it never is the day. Just two years ago, he signed a law that allows Georgians to carry handguns in public without a license or background check.

And here’s Trump, accepting the endorsement of the NRA in May:

In my second term, we will roll back every Biden attack on the Second Amendment.

At an NRA event in February he bragged:

During my four years, nothing happened. And there was great pressure on me, having to do with guns. We did nothing.

This TikTok video is a very raw response from a Mom who says she takes pictures of her kids every day so she will know what they were wearing in case something happens. She contrasts Trump’s attention to imaginary issues like schools changing kids’ genders with his disinterest in actual problems like kids getting shot at school.

Former Missouri high school teacher (and one of my favorite Substack bloggers) Jess Piper describes how disturbing active shooter drills are for teachers, not to mention students.

I also know that kids who are stuck in the hallway during an active shooter event are left in the hallway. Every single police officer who conducted drills told us the same thing: if you have a student begging to get into your classroom, refuse them. They could be the shooter.

During one drill, complete with explosions and smoke in the hallway, someone pounded on her locked classroom door and begged to be let in. She followed instructions and did not open the door. Even though she knew it was a drill, she felt traumatized afterwards. (Fortunately this was a teachers-only drill with no students present.)

Piper lists the common-sense changes the vast majority of voters would like to see: universal background checks, safe storage laws, and red flag laws.

Those proposals run into the same objections gun-violence apologists always raise: They won’t stop every shooter. No solution is perfect, so we should do nothing.

Qasim Rashid rebuts the nine most common NRA myths.

If you’re willing to accept school shootings as a “fact of life” and think government should “do nothing” about them, you know how to vote. If you believe that it doesn’t have to be this way, you also know how to vote.

and the corporate media covering for Trump’s mental decline

That’s the subject of the featured post, introducing the term sanewashing, which has been around for a while, but whose usage has recently exploded.

and Trump’s legal cases

Judge Juan Merchan delayed sentencing Trump for his 34 felony convictions until after the election. Frustrating as this is, Politico’s Ankush Khardori explains the judge’s thinking.

The federal January 6 case is back in Judge Chutkan’s court, which now has to deal with the Supreme Court’s invention of presidential immunity. There are so many issues to sort out that we are still months or maybe even years away from trial, even if Trump doesn’t win the election and order the Justice Department to drop the charges. But between now and election day Chutkan may hold evidentiary hearings or request briefs that could allow Jack Smith to introduce evidence the public hasn’t seen yet.

Trump must think the E. Jean Carroll defamation cases (where juries found him responsible for sexual abuse and defamation, totaling up to nearly $90 million in damages) works in his favor politically, because he purposefully called attention to it Friday.

He didn’t have to show up for the hearing in federal appeals court about his attempt to overturn the initial $5 million verdict, but he did. He also didn’t have to make a 49-minute statement to the press afterward, but he did that too.

The appeals court can’t just substitute its own judgment for the jury’s, because the jury heard witness testimony live rather than reading it in a transcript. So who the jury decided to believe is not reviewable. What the appeal is about is whether the jury should have been allowed to hear one of the witnesses at all, or listen to the infamous Access Hollywood tape, where Trump confessed to doing in general the kind of thing Carroll accused him of specifically.

The witness in question supported Carroll’s case by testifying that Trump had groped her on an airplane, something he continues to deny. In his press statement, Trump did what he so often does, saying that the witness wasn’t attractive enough to assault.

Frankly, I know you’re going to say it’s a terrible thing to say, but it couldn’t have happened, it didn’t happen, and she wouldn’t have been the chosen one. She would not have been the chosen one.

“The chosen one” — as if it’s an honor, and women are lining up hoping that Trump will grope them. All I can say is: “What an asshole.” You can watch the video here; it looks and sounds just as bad as it reads.

Oh, and Trump also lied about Anderson Cooper, as Cooper demonstrated Friday evening.

and you also might be interested in …

The world’s most “liveable” city? Vienna.

I was going to write a summary of the Democrats’ best chance to retain the Senate, but I was going to say exactly what Jay Kuo says: It all comes down to Jon Tester winning in Montana and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell beating Rick Scott in Florida. Doing both probably keeps the 51-49 margin.

The knock on most renewable energy is that it’s unreliable; the sun isn’t always shining and the wind doesn’t always blow. The answer to that problem is battery storage. The Economist reports on the state of grid-scale batteries.

Massachusetts is making a major investment in offshore wind power.

How fast climate change causes sea level to rise depends to a large extent on what is happening under the glaciers of Greenland — and nobody really knows.

It’s September and Republicans control the House, so it must be time to talk about a government shutdown. The issue House Republicans are pushing this time is to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

That provision may sound reasonable if you don’t think about it too long — after all, we all want American elections to be decided by Americans. But basically it causes a problem without solving a problem.

It causes a problem because lots of legal American voters can’t easily produce proof of citizenship. In general, poor people have little incentive to get a passport, and Americans who have moved around a lot may have lost track of their birth certificates a few hops ago. (Again, there’s a socio-economic factor: If you’ve ever had to leave someplace in a hurry, taking all your important papers with you may not have been a priority.) You can probably go back to the county where you were born and pay a fee to get a new copy, but that’s a big enough hurdle to keep many people from voting — which may be the whole point.

As for the problem this idea is supposed to solve — noncitizens voting — it isn’t really a problem. Noncitizen voting is already illegal, and there is absolutely no evidence that significant numbers of noncitizens are voting (other than in local elections in cities that allow it). U.S. News summarizes:

Almost all available data says that noncitizen voting in federal elections, though not unprecedented, is incredibly rare.

In 2016, North Carolina audited its elections and found that 41 legal immigrants had cast ballots despite not yet being citizens out of 4.8 million votes cast. The state’s election board found that the votes made no difference in any state election.

Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger conducted an audit of the state’s voter rolls in 2022 and found that 1,634 had attempted to register but all were caught and none were actually registered.

God help me, but I agree strongly with Dick Cheney.

In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He can never be trusted with power again

I still hold him responsible for the Bush administration’s torture policy and would like to see him tried at The Hague. But he’s right this time, and I appreciate him not including some poison pill in his endorsement. I couldn’t have made the point better.

In recent weeks there has been a steady drumbeat of Republicans (or former Republicans) endorsing Harris: Adam Kinzinger; Liz Cheney; 238 staffers of the Bushes, Mitt Romney, and John McCain; Jimmy McCain; Rupert Murdoch’s son James; and many others.

Other Republicans have not endorsed Harris, but have announced that they won’t vote for Trump: Mike Pence, Pat Toomey, Meghan McCain, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan.

The way the announcements are dribbling out makes me wonder if someone in the Harris campaign is orchestrating the timing. But apparently it’s not all leading up to George W. Bush, whose office says he won’t endorse anyone this year.

In case you still respect Elon Musk: On September 1, he retweeted (with the comment “Interesting observation.“) a totally wacko theory that only “high-status” or “high-T” men should have input into political decision-making. The justification is that “people who aren’t able to defend themselves physically” process everything through a “safety filter” and aren’t free to ask “Is this true?” The ideal is “Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.”

Maybe I’m having a low-T day, but I can’t remember ever considering the idea that testosterone might enhance rationality. There’s a reason why we talk about guys who “think with their dicks”. When the ancient Athenian playwright Sophocles got old and felt his libido waning, he compared it to being freed from a harsh master.

The week’s best comeback. The Economist published an article “The hard right takes Germany into uncharted territory“. And Jathan Sadowski replied:

Oh I don’t know, I think that territory is actually very well charted.

The Economist edited, replacing “uncharted” with “dangerous”.

and let’s close with something tasty

Have a few thousand gallons of milk you need to do something with before they go bad? Maybe you too can take a run at the Guinness record for the largest ball of string cheese. The UPI story and the YouTube link disagree about the exact weight. (Was it 2200 pounds or just 1400 pounds? I think the YouTube link just did the kilogram/pound conversion wrong.) But it’s big. Sadly, the story doesn’t say whether anyone will get to eat it.

September 9, 2024 – 12:17 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (9)

The Word of the Week: Sanewashing

For the press that headlined every Biden flub, Trump’s wild delusions aren’t news. At least now we have a word to describe their failure.

Let’s start here: At a Moms for “Liberty” event on August 31, Donald Trump said this:

The transgender thing is incredible. Think about it, your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child, and many of these children, 15 years later, say “What the hell happened? Who did this to me?”

Incredible? Absolutely, and rightfully so: What Trump is telling us is literally beyond credibility, because it bears no resemblance to reality. Schools aren’t performing unauthorized gender-changing operations, or operations of any kind (beyond possibly the school nurse pulling a splinter out of a child’s finger). Not even the wildest radical is proposing that they should. And nobody is looking back on some surgery-at-school that happened 15 years ago.

This goes way beyond any political lying we’ve seen in the past. Trump isn’t exaggerating a statistic, cherry-picking a quote, or spinning some actual incident to his advantage. He’s not implying something nasty about an opponent that can’t be proved either way, or making some bizarre prediction that may not come to pass. Instead, he’s inviting us to come live in a completely delusional world of his construction.

And in case you think he just got carried away, he repeated the claim Saturday in Wisconsin.

You might imagine that a presidential candidate going so far off the deep end would be news. But for most of the mainstream press, it wasn’t. The New York Times covered the MfL event, but didn’t mention that particular part: “Conservative Moms, Charmed by Trump, Would Rather Avoid His Misogyny.” Many newspapers, including The Washington Post, used AP’s article, which also said nothing about schools doing surgeries: “Moms for Liberty fully embraces Trump and widens role in national politics as election nears“.

Just another normal event on a normal candidate’s normal schedule.

The day before, the NYT published an analysis of the two candidates’ ideas for making housing more affordable. They gave it a very both-sides headline: “Harris and Trump Have Housing Ideas. Economists Have Doubts.“

Harris’ housing ideas are relatively straightforward policies amenable to ordinary political and economic analysis: tax cuts to stimulate construction of affordable housing and a $25K benefit targeted at first-time home buyers. Trump’s “housing” idea is a side-effect of his insane proposal for “mass deportation”: If millions of undocumented people are forced to leave the country or herded into detention camps, the couches they’ve been sleeping on will become available to American citizens.

Nothing monstrous here. Just a normal presidential candidate’s policy idea, whose effectiveness economists might “doubt”. Former NYT public editor Margaret Sullivan quotes former NYT reporter (and Pulitzer-prize winner) James Risen: “At first, I thought this was a parody.”

Speaking of economists, Thursday Trump appeared before the Economic Club of New York. A woman asked him what specific legislation he would propose to make childcare more affordable. Here was his answer:

Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down. You know, I was somebody — we had, Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka, was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about — that, because look, child care is child care, couldn’t — you know, there’s something — you have to have it in this country. You have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers, compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to. But they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us. But they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have — I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country. Because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just — that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers will be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people. And then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about make America great again. We have to do it because right now, we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.

Got that? The NYT looked at that answer and divined a policy proposal: tariffs. It disapproved of Trump’s proposal, saying that it was a 19th century proposal for a 21st century country. “Trump Praises Tariffs, and William McKinley, to Power Brokers“. [1] But the fact that he was asked a serious question and responded with an incoherent ramble about something else — that wasn’t news.

The Washington Post thought the most significant thing Trump did Thursday was deepen his alliance with Elon Musk. Deep, deep in that article it summarized the childcare back-and-forth like this:

Trump made several other promises during his speech at the Economic Club of New York. … When asked about how he’d make child care more affordable, Trump suggested that he would help pay for it by placing taxes on foreign governments. “We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kinds of numbers we’re going to be taking in,” he said. He did not provide details or specifics about how this would work; experts have warned imposing tariffs on such a scale would risk triggering an international trade war.

Just a normal candidate explaining a normal policy amenable to normal critique. The word “suggested” does a lot of work here: It means that Trump’s words inspired WaPo’s three byline reporters to imagine a coherent proposal in which tariff revenue pays for childcare.

Oh, and Trump has an explanation for his rambles: It’s an art. He calls it “the weave”.

You know what the weave is? I’ll talk about like nine different things, and they all come back brilliantly together, and it’s like, friends of mine that are, like, English professors, they say, “It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen.”

It might be fair to see that explanation itself as evidence of insanity. But the NYT wrote an article taking it seriously. “Meandering? Off-Script? Trump Insists His ‘Weave’ Is Oratorical Genius.” It compared Trump’s verbal stylings to Shakespeare, William Faulkner, and James Joyce. Seriously. [2]

Just two months ago, the press took a very different attitude towards the mental processes of an aging candidate. On July 11, President Biden held a news conference to talk about the recently concluded NATO summit. He was asked questions on a variety of foreign-policy topics and answered them all in considerable detail, demonstrating an impressive mastery of a number of complex situations. Reuters’ headline captured none of that, because Biden had also occasionally misnamed people, like saying “Putin” when he meant “Zelensky”. “Biden makes a series of verbal gaffes at NATO summit“. The Hill also found Biden’s flub newsworthy: “Zelensky dismissed Biden accidentally calling him Putin as a ‘mistake’“.

If Biden made a verbal error, that became the headline. It eclipsed whatever else he had been trying to say.

Why isn’t Trump being covered the same way? When Trump says something insane or incoherent that should be the news. It’s not just smoke that a reporter needs to blow away to reveal some underlying policy point that may or may not actually exist. The nominee of a major party regularly says things that are insane or incoherent. That’s what’s significant. That — and not whatever policy a reporter can interpret from his ravings — is the news in these Trump events.

Blogs like this one have been making this point for months. But that understanding is beginning to creep closer to the mainstream. It is being aided by the existence of a term that perfectly describes what the NYT and its ilk have been doing: sanewashing.

Apparently the term goes back at least to 2020 and has been popularized more recently by Aaron Rupar, whose X/Twitter feed I often quote. But I hadn’t noticed sanewashing until this week, when suddenly it exploded into public consciousness and usage. TNR’s Parker Malloy defines it like this: “reframing Trump’s incoherent and often dangerous rhetoric as conventional political discourse”. Her article gives many examples I have not mentioned here.

Her TNR colleague Michael Tomasky was a little more blunt:

With dizzying regularity, Trump lies. He says toxic, antidemocratic things over and over again. And he still gets treated like a normal candidate. It’s often the case that the media, presented with another one of his addled rants, will dive in, scoop, and separate enough words to make it seem like he’s got enough actual gray matter gooping around in his skull to form a complete sentence, and present their director’s cut of his wandering mind for public consumption. 

His link is to a Jason Linkin tweet, which calls this phenomenon “coherency bias”. But sanewash is the term that seems to be winning out. Thursday, James Fallows asked his followers on X/Twitter whether they can

think of an example of main media “sane-washing” Biden the way they are even today doing w Trump?

Friday, the term appeared in the Outside the Beltway blog. Friday, Joy Reid used it on MSNBC. This morning, it appeared in Columbia Journalism Review.

A phenomenon with a widely-used name is harder to ignore, and harder to make excuses for, than some vague intuition that a lot of us share. Perhaps now we can hope that Trump’s delusions and incoherent rambles will themselves become news, just as Biden’s word-substitutions did.

Greg Sargent, who wrote The Plum Line blog for the WaPo until 2023 and now writes for TNR, described what that would mean:

Trump’s mental fitness for the presidency deserves sustained journalistic scrutiny as a stand-alone topic with its own intrinsic importance and newsworthiness. Real journalistic resources should be put into meaningfully covering it from multiple angles, as often happens with other big national stories of great consequence.

He illustrated the point by rewriting actual headlines about Biden as they might apply Trump.

And he asks:

Are these headlines really stretches, based on all we’ve seen? I submit that they are not. Note that all of these treat signs of the subject’s questionable mental fitness for the presidency—and the politics surrounding them—as themselves being the real news. How often do you see headlines like this? Why don’t we see more of them?

Why indeed?

[1] It’s worth pointing out that even if you give Trump the benefit of the doubt and interpret his nonsense as having something to do with tariffs, he still isn’t making sense. A tariff does not “tax foreign nations”. A tariff is a tax paid by an American importer, not a foreign exporter. If that importer isn’t going to go broke, it needs to raise the prices its American customers pay. So a tariff is ultimately a tax on American consumers, not on foreigners.

This has been well understood for a long time. Back in 1828, a tariff very nearly started the Civil War decades early, because it taxed British goods Southerners needed in order to benefit Northern industries that otherwise couldn’t compete with British imports. Southerners like John Calhoun labeled the proposal “the Tariff of Abominations“, because they grasped that the British weren’t paying the tax, they were.

So calling a tariff a “tax on foreign nations”, like talking about schools performing surgeries on unsuspecting students, is delusional.

[2] I am reminded of a possibly apocryphal story (recounted without reference in the Illuminatus! trilogy) of a conversation between James Joyce and Carl Jung. Joyce excuses his schizophrenic daughter’s ravings by comparing them to similar to passages in his own writing. “You are diving,” Jung supposedly replies, “but she is sinking.”

When Trump “weaves”, I don’t think he’s diving.

September 9, 2024 – 10:33 am Categories: Articles | Comments (24)

Tagged |