Sunday, November 19. 2017
I've often heard that "politics is the art of the possible" -- the
quote is most often attributed to Otto von Bismarck, who continued:
"the attainable -- the art of the next best." Bismarck is best known
now as the architect of the modern welfare state, something he achieved
with autocratic Prussian efficiency, his generally satisfactory answer
to the threat of proletarian revolution. But the earlier generations
he was better known as the founder of German militarism, a bequest
which less pragmatic followers parlayed into two disastrous world wars.
Then, as now, the "possible" was always limited by preconceptions --
in Bismarck's case, allegiance to the Prussian nobility, which kept
his innovations free of concessions to equality and democracy.
After immersing myself into the arcana of mainstream politics in
the 1960s -- I used to trek to the library to read Congressional
Quarterly's Weekly Reports, I subscribed to the Congressional
Record, and I drew up electoral maps much like Kevin Phillips --
I pivoted and dove into the literature of the politically impossible,
reading about utopian notions from Thomas More to Ignatius Donnelly
to Paul Goodman (whose Utopian Essays & Practical Proposals
is a title I still fancy recapitulating). But I never really lost my
bearings in reality. In college I worked on the philosophy journal
Telos, which taught one to always look toward ends (or goals)
no matter the immediate terrain, and I studied neo-Kantians with a
knack for making logic work to bridge the chasm. Later I turned into
an engineer, and eventually had the epiphany that we could rationally
think our way through complex political and economic problems to not
necessarily ideal but much more viable solutions.
From the start I was aware of the standard and many other objections
to "social engineering." No time to go into them now, but my background
in engineering taught me that I have to work within the bounds of the
possible, subject to the hard limits of physics and the slightly messier
lessons I had learned from my major in sociology. Without really losing
my early ideals -- my telos is equality, because that's the only social
arrangement that is mutually agreeable, the only one that precludes
scheming, strife, and needless harm -- I came to focus on little steps
that nudge us in the right direction, and to reject ideas that couldn't
possibly work. Thinking about this has made me a much more moderate
person, without leading me to centrism or the notion that compromise
A good example of a political agenda that cannot be implemented --
indeed, one that offers nothing constructive -- was provided a while
back by Alan Keys, a Republican presidential candidate whose entire
world view revolved around teenagers having sex and how society needs
to stop them. Maybe his analysis has some valid points, and maybe
there are some paternalistic nudges that can trim back some of the
statistical effects (like the rate of teen pregnancy), but nothing --
certainly no tolerable level of coercion -- can keep teenagers from
being interested in sex. Of course, Keys was an outlier, even among
Republican evangelicals. Only slightly more moderate is Roy Moore,
who's evidently willing to carve out an exception for teens willing
to have sex with himself. You might chalk that up to hypocrisy,
which is common among all Americans, but is especially rife among
conservatives (who regard it as a privilege of the virtuous rich)
and evangelicals (who expect personal salvation for the fervor with
which they damn all of you). But Moore's own agenda for making his
peculiar take on Christianity the law of the land is every bit as
dangerous and hopeless as Keys' obsession with teen sex.
The most chilling thing I've read in the last week was a column
by Cal Thomas,
Faith in Politics, where he urges conservative evangelicals to
put aside their frivolous defenses of Roy Moore and go back to such
fundamentals as Martin Luther's 95 Theses, where "Luther believed
governments were ordained by God to restrain sinners and little
else." The striking thing about this phrasing is how cleverly it
forges an alliance with the libertarian right, who you'd expect
to be extremely wary of God-ordained governmental restraint. But
sin has always been viewed through the eyes of tyrants and their
pet clergy, a "holy alliance" that has been the source of so much
suffering and injustice throughout world history.
News recently has been dominated by a seemingly endless series
of reports of sexual misconduct, harassment and/or assault, on
all sides of the political spectrum (at least from Roy Moore to
Al Franken), plus a number of entertainers and industry executives.
Conservatives and liberals react to these stories differently --
aside from partisan considerations (which certainly play a part
when a Senate seat is at stake), conservatives are hypocritically
worked up about illicit sex, while liberals are more concerned
with respecting the rights of women. Yet both sides (unless the
complaint hits particularly close to home) seem to be demanding
harsh punishment (see, e.g.,
Mark Joseph Stern: Al Franken Should Resign Immediately
Michelle Goldberg and
Nate Silver agree, mostly because they want to prove that
Democrats are harsher and less hypocritical on sexual misconduct;
indeed, instant banishment seems to have been the norm among
entertainers, which Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, and Jeffrey Tambor
having projects canceled, as well as more delayed firings of
Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and Harvie Weinstein). This drive
to punish, which has long been a feature of America's notion
of justice, can wind up making things worse (and not just
because it could trigger a backlash, as
Isaac Chotiner and Rebecca Traister discuss).
I'm sure many women have many things to object to here -- the
Weinstein testimonies seem especially damning, and I suspect the
hushed up Ailes and O'Reilly legacies are comparable -- but I'm
finding some aspects of the whole brouhaha troubling. Sex is a messy
subject, often fraught and embarrassing to negotiate, subject to wildly
exaggerated hopes and fears, but inevitably a part of human nature --
I keep flashing back on Brecht's chorus: "what keeps mankind alive?
bestial acts." On the other hand, we might be better off looking at
power disparities (inequality), which are clearly evident in all of
these cases, perhaps even more so in entertainment than in politics.
I can't help but think that in a more equitable society, one that
valued mutual respect and eased up a bit on arbitrary punishment,
would be bothered less by these problems.
Some scattered links this week:
Matthew Yglesias: The 4 biggest stories in politics this week:
The House passed a major tax bill ("but the House bill, as written,
doesn't conform to Senate rules and clearly can't pass"); Senate
Republicans drafted a tax bill ("that does conform to Senate rules
at the expense of creating an even starker set of financial tradeoffs");
Bob Menendez isn't guilty (I would have said something more like
"dodged conviction via mistrial"); Things are looking worse for Roy
Moore. Other Yglesias posts last week:
Senate Republicans' tax plan raises taxes on families earning less
than $75,000. The chart, clearly demonstrating how regressive the
plan is, is for 2027, without showing how one gets there. To satisfy
the Senate's "budget reconciliation" rules many of the tax cuts have
to expire in less than ten years, so this is the end state the bill
aims for, probably with the expectation that some further cuts will
be renewed before they run out (as happened with the Bush cuts). So
on the one hand, this exaggerates the "worst case" scenario, it also
clarifies the intent behind the whole scam.
Watch CEOs admit they won't actually invest more if tax reform passes:
Gary Cohn feigns surprise that so few CEOs raised their hands.
The reason few hands are raised is there's little reason to believe that
the kind of broad corporate income tax cut Republicans are pushing for
will induce much new investment. . . . The biggest immediate winners,
in fact, would be big, established companies that are already highly
profitable. Apple, for example, would get a huge tax cut even though
the company's gargantuan cash balance is all the proof in the world
that the its investments are limited by Tim Cook's beliefs about what
Apple can usefully take on, not by a limited supply of cash or a lack
Bill Clinton should have resigned: "What he did to Monica Lewinsky
was wrong, and he should have paid the price." I've sympathized with
versions of this argument -- Gary Wills has written much on how Clinton
should have resigned, and I'm on record as having said that Had I been
in the Senate I would have voted to convict him (less because I agreed
with the actual charges than because I felt he should "pay the price"
for other things he did that were wrong -- at the time I was most upset
about Clinton's bombing of Iraq, something his Republican inquisitors
applauded, prefiguring the 2003 Bush invasion). However, I was under
the impression that whatever he did with Lewinsky was mutually consented
to and should have remained private. Indeed, before Clinton (or more
specifically, before the Scaife-funded investigation into Clinton)
politicians' private affairs had hardly ever become objects of public
concern. (I suppose Grover Cleveland, America's only bachelor president,
is the exception.) Given that all US presidents have been male, you can
argue that this public nonchalance is part of a longstanding patriarchal
culture, but there's no reason to think that the right-wingers who went
after Clinton were in any way interested in advancing feminism. Perhaps
Clinton himself could have turned his resignation into a feminist talking
point: Yglesias insists, "Had Clinton resigned in disgrace under pressure
from his own party, that would have sent a strong, and useful, chilling
signal to powerful men throughout the country." Still, I doubt that's the
lesson the Republicans would have drawn. Rather, it would have shown to
them that they had the power to drive a popular, charismatic president
from office in disgrace using pretty flimsy evidence. While there's no
reason to doubt he did it for purely selfish reasons, at the time many
people were delighted that Clinton stood firm and didn't buckle under
right-wing media shaming (e.g., that was the origin of the left-Democratic
Move On organization). As for long-term impact, Yglesias seems to argue
that had Clinton resigned, we wouldn't have found ourselves on the moral
slope that led to Trump's election.
The tax reform debate is stuck in the 1970s: "The '70s were a crazy
time," but he could be clearer about what the Republican tax cut scheme
was really about, and vaguer about the Democrat response -- worry about
the deficit came more after the damage was done (until they Democrats
were easily tarred as advocates of "tax-and-spend"). And even though he's
right that the situations are so different now that allowing companies
and rich investors to keep more after-tax income is even less likely to
spur job growth now, the fact is it didn't really work even when it made
more sense. Here's an inadvertently amusing line: "The politics of the
1970s, after all, would have been totally different if inflation,
unemployment, interest rates, and labor force growth were all low while
corporate profits were high." I'd hypothesize that if corporate profits
were artificially raised through political means (which is pretty much
what's happened starting with the Reagan tax cuts in 1981) all those
other factors would have been reduced. Increasing corporate profits
even more just adds to the burden the rich already impose on us all.
Sean Illing: "The fish rots from the head": a historian on the unique
corruption of Trump's White House: An interview with Robert Dallek,
who "estimates that historical examples of corruption, like that of the
Warren G. Harding administration, don't hold a candle to how Trump and
his people have conducted themselves in the White House." One thing I
noticed here is how small famous scandals were in comparison to things
that are happening every day under Trump: e.g., Teapot Dome ("in which
Harding's secretary of the interior leased Navy petroleum reserves in
Wyoming and California to private oil companies at incredibly low rates
without a competitive bidding process"). Isn't that exactly what Zinke
is trying to do with Alaska's oil reserves? Wasn't that Zinke's rationale
behind reducing several National Monuments? And how does that stack up
against the monetary value of various deregulation orders (especially
those by the EPA and FCC)? To get a handle on corruption today, you have
to look beyond first-order matters like Trump family business and direct
payoffs to the windfalls industries claim from administration largess
and beyond to corporate predation that will inevitably occur as it sinks
in that the Trump administration is no longer enforcing regulations and
laws that previously protected the public. Even short of changing laws
to encourage further predation (as Bush did with his tax cuts and "tort
reform"), the Trump administration is not just profiting from but breeding
corruption. Curiously, Dallek doesn't even mention the closest relatives:
the Reagan administration, with its embrace of "greed is good" leading to
dozens of major scandals, and the second Bush, which imploded so utterly
we wound up with the deepest recession since the 1930s.
Cristina Cabrera: Trump Puts on Hold Controversial Rollback of Elephant
Trophy Ban: In the "could be worse" department:
The U.S Fish & Wildlife Service announced on November 16 that it was
rolling back an Obama-era ban preventing the import of hunted elephants
in Zimbabwe. A similar ban had also been lifted for hunted elephants in
The decision was met with overwhelming backlash, with both liberals
and conservatives slamming the move as needlessly cruel and inhumane.
The notorious photos of the President's sons posing with a dead leopard
and a dismembered tail of a elephant from their hunting expeditions
According to the Service, it can allow such imports "only when the
killing of the animal will enhance the survival of the species." African
elephants are protected as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act, and critics questioned the Interior Department's defense
that allowing hunters to kill more of them would enhance their survival.
To be fair to the Trump administration, "allowing hunters to kill more
of them would enhance their survival" is also the common logic that binds
together most key Republican initiatives, like their "repeal and replace
Obamacare" and "tax cuts and jobs" acts. It's also basically why they
made Betsy De Vos Secretary of Education. For more, see
Tara Isabella Burton: Trump stalls controversial decision on big game
Alvin Chang: This simple chart debunks the conspiracy theory that Hillary
Clinton sold uranium to Russia: The latest "lock her up" chorus,
cheerleadered by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). I can't make any sense of
his chart, but the simplified one is easy enough to follow (although
it could use a dateline). Still, a couple of troubling points. One is
why Russian state-owned Rosatom would buy a Canadian uranium country
with operations in the US. Presumably it's just business, and Uranium
One still sells (as well as produces) uranium in the US market. The
other point is that the Clinton Foundation never has and never will
cleanse itself of the stench of operating as an influence peddler with
ties into the US government -- although it helps that Hillary is no
longer Secretary of State or otherwise government-employed, and it
will help more as Clinton's numerous political cronies move away from
the family and its foundation.
Adam Federman: The Plot to Loot America's Wilderness: Meet Jim
Cason, who "seems to be running the show" under Ryan Zinke at the
Department of Interior, where he's actively cultivating what promises
to be a hundred Teapot Dome scandals.
Brent D Griffiths: Trump on UCLA basketball players: 'I should have left
them in jail': If run in The New Yorker, this article would
have been filed under "Annals of Pettiness."
Gregory Hellman: House declares US military role in Yemen's civil war
unauthorized: Vote was 366-30, declaring that intervention in Yemen
is not authorized under previous "authorization of force" resolutions,
including the sweeping "war on terror" resolution from 2001. The US has
conducted drone attacks in Yemen well before the Saudi intervention in
a civil war that grew out of Arab Spring demonstrations (although the
Houthi revolt dates back even further). The US has supported the Saudi
intervention verbally, with arms shipments, and with target intelligence,
contributing to a major humanitarian disaster. Unfortunately, the new
resolution seems to have little teeth.
Cameron Joseph: Norm Coleman: I'd Have Beaten Franken in '08 if Groping
Photo Had Come Out: Probably. The final tally had Franken ahead by
312 votes, so Coleman isn't insisting on much of a swing. On the other
hand, I don't live in Minnesota, so I don't have any real feel for how
the actual 2008 campaign played out. Coleman won his seat in 2002 after
Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash and was replaced by a shockingly
tone-deaf Walter Mondale -- inactive in politics since 1984. Coleman's
win was a fluke, and he was never very popular, but Franken had a very
tough job unseating him in 2008 -- I suspect his real problem was Upton
Sinclair Complex (the famous novelist ran for governor of California
in 1934 and lost, in no small part because opponents could pick strange
quotes from his novels and present them out of context). Franken's
comedy career must have presented Coleman's handlers with a treasure
trove of bad jokes and faux pas, so many that the "groping picture"
might even have gotten lost in the noise. For his part, Franken bent
over backwards to present himself as serious and sober, and six years
later was reelected easily, by 10.4 points, an improvement suggesting
many of the voters' doubts have been answered. I've never been much
of a fan, either of his comedy or of how he cozied up to the military
to gain a mainstream political perch. Still, I've reluctantly grown
to admire his dedication and earnestness as a politician, a vocation
that has lately become ever more precarious for honest folk. So I was
shocked when the photo/story revealed, not so much by the content as
by how eagerly the media gobbled it up. In particular,
TPM, which I usually look at
first when I get up for a quick summary of the latest political flaps,
filed eight straight stories on Franken in their prioritized central
column, to the exclusion of not just Roy Moore (who had the next three
stories) but also of the House passing the Republican tax scam bill.
A couple more links on Franken:
In addition to Yglesias above, I'm running into more reconsiderations
of Bill Clinton, basically showing that the atmosphere has changed between
the 1990s and now, making Clinton look all the worse. For example:
Fred Kaplan: Trigger Warning: "A congressional hearing underlines
the dangers posed by an unstable president with unchecked authority
to launch nuclear weapons."
Azmat Khan/Anand Gopal: The Uncounted: Long and gruesome article
on the air war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, who and what got hit,
paying some attention to the mistakes that are never expected but
somehow always occur whenever the US goes to war.
Between April 2016 and June 2017, we visited the sites of nearly 150
airstrikes across northern Iraq, not long after ISIS was evicted from
them. We toured the wreckage; we interviewed hundreds of witnesses,
survivors, family members, intelligence informants and local officials;
we photographed bomb fragments, scoured local news sources, identified
ISIS targets in the vicinity and mapped the destruction through satellite
imagery. We also visited the American air base in Qatar where the coalition
directs the air campaign. There, we were given access to the main operations
floor and interviewed senior commanders, intelligence officials, legal
advisers and civilian-casualty assessment experts. We provided their
analysts with the coordinates and date ranges of every airstrike -- 103
in all -- in three ISIS-controlled areas and examined their responses.
The result is the first systematic, ground-based sample of airstrikes
in Iraq since this latest military action began in 2014. . . .
We found that one in five of the coalition strikes we identified
resulted in civilian death, a rate more than 31 times that acknowledged
by the coalition. It is at such a distance from official claims that, in
terms of civilian deaths, this may be the least transparent war in recent
American history. Our reporting, moreover, revealed a consistent failure
by the coalition to investigate claims properly or to keep records that
make it possible to investigate the claims at all. While some of the
civilian deaths we documented were a result of proximity to a legitimate
ISIS target, many others appear to be the result simply of flawed or
outdated intelligence that conflated civilians with combatants. In this
system, Iraqis are considered guilty until proved innocent. Those who
survive the strikes, people like Basim Razzo, remain marked as possible
ISIS sympathizers, with no discernible path to clear their names.
Mike Konczal: Republicans are weaponizing the tax code: Key fact
here: "Corporations are flush with cash from large profits and
aggressively low interest rates, yet they aren't investing." This
belies any pretense that cutting corporate tax rates. Without any
real growth prospects, the cuts not only favor the rich, the other
changes are meant to penalize everyone else, moving into the realm
of class war ("capital is eating the economy").
The crucial thing to realize is that this tax reform effort reflects
more than the normal conservative allergic reaction to progressive
taxation -- going far beyond undoing the modest progressive grains
achieved by Presidents Obama and Clinton. Three major changes stand
out: These taxes are far more focused on owners than on workers, even
by Republican standards. They take advantage of the ambiguity of what
counts as income, weaponizing that vagueness to help their friends
and hurt their enemies.
And after years of pushing for a safety net that works through the
tax code, in order to keep more social democratic reforms at bay,
Republicans now reveal their willingness to demolish even those
modest protections. Their actions make clear that a welfare state
based on tax credits and refunds, rather than universal commitments,
is all too vulnerable.
More links on taxes:
Josh Marshall: There's a Digital Media Crush. But No One Will Say It:
The key sentence here is "The move to video is driven entirely by advertiser
demand." The reasoning behind this is left unexplained, but obviously it's
because advertising embedded in videos is more intrusive than static space
advertising. Part of this is that it's harder for users to block as well
as ignore, for the same reason radio and television advertising are more
intrusive than print advertising. They're also dumber, because they don't
have to offer something useful like information to catch your attention. If
past experience is any guide, it also leads to a dumbing down of content,
which eventually will make the content close to worthless. This is all bad
news for media companies hoping to make bucks off the Internet, and more
so for writers trying to scratch out a living from those companies. But
more than anything else, it calls into question the public value of an
information system based on advertising. From the very beginning, media
dependent on advertising have been corrupted by it, and that's only gotten
worse as advertisers have gained leverage and targeting data. Concentration
of media business only makes this worse, but even if we could reverse the
latter -- breaking up effective monopolies and monopsonies and restoring
"net neutrality" rules -- we should be questioning the very idea of public
information systems built on advertising.
Dylan Matthews: Senate Republicans are making it easier to push through
Trump's judge picks: Technically, this is about "blue slips," which
is one of those undemocratic rules which allow individual Senators to
flout their power, but few things in the Republican agenda are more
precious to them (or their donors) than packing the courts with verified
Andrew Prokop/Jen Kirby: The Republican Party's Roy Moore catastrophe,
explained. A couple impressions here. For one, their listing of
Moore's "extremist views" seem pretty run-of-the-mill -- things that
some 15-20% of Americans might if not agree with him at least find
untroubling. I suspect this understates his extremism, especially on
issues of religious freedom, where he has staked out his turf as a
Christian nationalist. Second, I've been under the impression that
his sexual misdeeds were in the range of harassment (compounded by
the youth of his victims, as young as 14), but at least one of the
complaints reads like attempted assault -- the girl in question was
16, and when Moore broke off the attack, he allegedly said to the
girl: "You are a child. I am the Dictrict Attorney of Etowah County.
If you tell anyone about this, no one will believe you." I reckon
it as progress that such charges are highly credible now. As for the
effect these revelations may have on the election, note: "A recent
poll even showed that 29 percent of the state's voters say the
allegations make them more likely to vote for Moore."
Also on Moore:
Corey Robin: Trump's Fantasy Capitalism: "How the president undermines
Republicans' traditional economic arguments." Robin, by the way, has
a new edition of his The Reactionary Mind book out, the subtitle
Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump as opposed to the
original Sarah Palin. For reviews, see
John Holbro and
Grant Schulte/James Nord: Oil Leak Will Not Factor Into Decision to
Expand Keystone Pipeline: Of course, because right after a 250,000
gallon oil leak time is no time to talk about how approving a pipeline
could lead to more oil leaks. Also, note how the authors had to walk
back one of their more outrageous claims:
This version of the story corrects that there have been 17 leaks the
same size or larger than the Keystone spill instead of 17 larger than
this spill. One of the spills was the same size.
Matt Taibbi: RIP Edward Herman, Who Co-Wrote a Book That's Now More
Important Than Ever: The book, co-authored by Noam Chomsky, is
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,
originally published in 1988.
The really sad part about the Herman/Chomsky thesis was that it didn't
rely upon coercion or violence. Newspapers and TV channels portrayed
the world in this America-centric way not because they were forced to.
Mostly, they were just intellectually lazy and disinterested in the
stated mission of their business, i.e., telling the truth.
In fact, media outlets were simply vehicles for conveying ads, and
a consistent and un-troubling view of the political universe was a
prerequisite for selling cars, candy bars, detergent, etc. Upset people
don't buy stuff. This is why Sunday afternoon broadcasts featured golf
tournaments and not police beatings or reports from cancer wards near
The news business was about making money, and making money back then
for big media was easy. So why make a fuss?
It occurs to me that the big money isn't so easy any more, which
helps explain the air of desperation that hangs over cable and internet
news outlets these days -- their need to provoke fear and stoke fights,
building up an air of loyalty. One even suspects that Fox gravitated
to right-wing politics less because of its sponsorship than due to a
psychological profile of a sizable audience that could be captured.
As Taibbi concludes, "It's a shame [Herman] never wrote a sequel. Now
more than ever, we could use another Manufacturing Consent."
By the way, while Herman and Chomsky identified "anti-communism" as
their "fifth filter," that should be generalized to denigrating anyone
on the US list of bad countries or movements -- especially the routine
characterization of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela as non-democracies,
even though all three have elections that are arguably fairer and
freer than America's 2016 election. One consequence of this is that
American media has lost all credibility in many of these nations.
For example, see
Oleg Kashin: When Russians stopped believing in the Western media.
Zephyr Teachout: The Menendez trial revealed everything that's gone
wrong with US bribery law: The corruption case against Senator
Bob Menendez (D-NJ) ended in a hung jury mistrial, even short of
the appeals process which has severely weakened most anti-corruption
I'm with the jury: Even after closely following the trial, I have no
strong view on Menendez's guilt or innocence, given the laws they have
to work with. I do have a view, however, that the Supreme Court has
been playing a shell game with corruption laws. It has stripped
anti-corruption legislation of its power in two areas: campaign
finance laws and anti-bribery laws. The public is left with little
recourse against a growing threat of corruption. Whatever happens
with this particular case, this is no way to do corruption law. . . .
It is fitting that the trial ended with a hung jury. The Court
has struck down so many laws that would have made this case easier.
If laws prohibiting Super PACs were still in place, we'd have no
$600,000 donation. But in the very case enabling Super PACs, Citizens
United, the Court suggested that bribery laws would be powerful tools
to combat corruption threats -- and then went ahead and weakened
those laws. . . .
Was it friendship? Was it corrupt? Or was it our fault for creating
a system that encourages "friendships" that blur the line?
Sunday, November 12. 2017
Matt Taibbi is a dedicated, insightful journalist and a terrific writer,
but ever since the 2016 campaign started he's repeatedly gotten tripped up
by having to meet advance deadlines for Rolling Stone that have left
many of his pieces dated on arrival. His latest is especially unfortunate:
A Year After Trump's Election, Nothing Has Changed. The factoid he chose
to build his article around was a recent poll arguing that
12 months later, Trump would probably still win the 2016 election.
The assumption is that Trump is still running against Hillary Clinton.
Trump, of course, has been in the news every day since the election,
and is already raising money for 2020 and making rally appearances in
active campaigning mode. Aside from her self-serving, self-rationalizing
book tour Clinton has largely dropped out of site, conceding she's not
running again, and not scoring any points attacking Trump -- not that
Trump's stopped attacking her, most recently accusing her of being the
real "Russia colluder." Still, the poll in question shows Trump and
Clinton in a dead 40-40 tie -- i.e., both candidates are doing worse
than they did one year ago, but in the interest of sensationalism, the
author gives Trump the tiebreaker ("Given that Trump overperformed in
key, blue-leaning swing states, that means he'd probably have won again.")
As it happens, Taibbi's article was written before and appeared after
the 2017 elections where Democrats swept two gubernatorial races (in VA
and NJ), and picked up fairly dramatic gains in down-ballot elections
all over the country. For details, start with FiveThirtyEight's
What Went Down on Election Night 2017.
Nate Silver explains further:
Democrats had a really good night on Tuesday, easily claiming the Virginia
and New Jersey gubernatorial races, flipping control of the Washington
state Senate and possibly also the Virginia House of Delegates, passing
a ballot measure in Maine that will expand Medicaid in the state, winning
a variety of mayoral elections around the country, and gaining control of
key county executive seats in suburban New York.
They also got pretty much exactly the results you'd expect when opposing
a Republican president with a 38 percent approval rating.
That's not to downplay Democrats' accomplishments. Democrats' results
were consistent enough, and their margins were large enough, that Tuesday's
elections had a wave-like feel. That includes how they performed in Virginia,
where Ralph Northam won by considerably more than polls projected. When
almost all the toss-up races go a certain way, and when the party winning
those toss-up races also accomplishes certain things that were thought to
be extreme long shots (such as possibly winning the Virginia House of
Delegates), it's almost certainly a reflection of the national environment.
Silver also notes:
- President Trump's approval rating is only 37.6 percent.
- Democrats lead by approximately 10 points on the generic Congressional
- Republican incumbents are retiring at a rapid pace; there were two
retirements (from New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo and Texas Rep. Ted Poe)
on Tuesday alone.
- Democrats are recruiting astonishing numbers of candidates for
- Democrats have performed well overall in special elections to the
U.S. Congress, relative to the partisanship of those districts; they've
also performed well in special elections to state legislatures.
- The opposition party almost always gains ground at midterm elections.
This is one of the most durable empirical rules of American politics.
The thing I find most striking about these election results is the
unity Democrats showed. Mainstream Democrats still bitch about lefties
who defected to Ralph Nader in 2000, but as someone who remembers how
mainstream Democrats sandbagged McGovern in 1972 (and who's read about
how Bryan was repeatedly voted down after 1896), I've long been more
concerned about how "centrists" might break if anyone on the left wins
the Democratic Party nomination. Yet last week saw a remarkably diverse
group of Democrats triumphant. The lesson I take away from the results
is that most voters have come to realize is that the problem isn't just
Trump and some of his ilk but the whole Republican Party, and that the
only hope people have is to unite behind the Democrats, regardless of
whether they zig left or zag right. Especially after last week's flap
over Donna Brazile's book Hacks, that's good news.
It's also news that belies Taibbi's main thesis: not so much that
nothing has changed in the year since Trump's shocking election win as
the charge that we're still responding as stupidly to Trump as we did
during the campaign. On the former, the administration's worker bees
have torn up thousands of pages of regulations meant to protect us
from predatory business, major law enforcement organizations have been
reoriented to persecute immigrants while ignoring civil rights and
antitrust, and the judiciary is being stock with fresh right-wingers.
The full brunt of those changes may not have sunk in -- they certainly
haven't hit all their intended victims yet -- but even if you fail to
appreciate the threats these changes have a way of becoming tangible
very suddenly. And given how Republican health care proposals polled
down around 20%, you may need to rethink your assumptions about how
dumb and gullible the American people are.
Republican proposals on "tax reform" are polling little better than
their effort to wreck health care. This polling is helping to stall
the agenda, but Republicans in Congress are so ideological, and so
beholden to their sponsors, that most are willing to buck and polls
and follow their orders. What we've needed all year has been for
elections to show Republicans that their choices have consequences,
and hopefully that's started to happen now.
But whereas the first half of Taibbi's article can be blamed on
bad timing, the second half winds up being even more annoying:
Despising Trump and his followers is easy. What's hard is imagining
how we put Humpty Dumpty together again. This country is broken. It
is devastated by hate and distrust. What is needed is a massive effort
at national reconciliation. It will have to be inspired, delicate and
ingenious to work. Someone needs to come up with a positive vision for
the entire country, one that is more about love and community than
That will probably mean abandoning the impulse to continually
litigate the question of who is worse, Republicans or Democrats. . . .
The people running the Democratic Party are opportunists and hacks,
and for as long as the despicable and easily hated Trump is president,
that is what these dopes will focus on, not realizing that most of the
country is crying out for something different.
Well, I'm as eager as the next guy for a high-minded conversation
about common problems and reasonable solutions, but that's not what
politics is about these days (and probably never was). But let's face
it, the immediate problem is that one side's totally unprincipled and
totally unreasonable, and the only way past that is to beat that side
down so severely no one ever dares utter "trickle down" again. They
need to get beat down as bad as the Nazis in WWII -- so bad the stink
of collaboration much less membership takes generations to wash off.
Then maybe we can pick up the pieces.
As for the "hacks and opportunists," sure they are, but they're
approachable in ways the Republicans simply aren't. I've seen good
people, hard-working activists, come into Wichita for years and urge
us to go talk to our Congressman, as if the person in that office
(remember, we're talking about Todd Tiahrt, Mike Pompeo, and Ron
Estes) was merely misinformed but fundamentally reasonable. I've
met plenty of hacks and opportunists who are at least approachable,
but not these guys. They've sold their souls, and they're never
By the way, Thomas Frank's article on the Trump Day anniversary
runs into pretty much the same problem:
We're still aghast at Donald Trump -- but what good has that done?
Well, the American political system doesn't give you a lot of latitude
to repair a botched election -- everyone in office has fixed terms,
the option of signing recall petitions is very limited (and doesn't
apply to Trump), impeachment is virtually impossible without massive
Republican defections -- so sometimes being constantly aghast is all
one can do. And while the last three US presidents had their share of
intractably obsessive opponents, they pale to the numbers of people
constantly on Trump's case. Frank wants to minimize our effect, not
least because he wants us to consider bigger, wider, deeper, older
faults that Trump makes worse but isn't uniquely responsible for.
Trump's sins are continuous with the last 50 years of our history.
His bigotry and racist dog-whistling? Conservatives have been doing
that since forever. His vain obsession with ratings, his strutting
braggadocio? Welcome to the land of Hollywood and pro wrestling.
His tweeting? The technology is new, but the urge to evade the
mainstream media is not. His outreach to working-class voters? His
hatred of the press? He lifts those straight from his hero Richard
Nixon. His combination of populist style with enrich-the-rich policies?
Republicans have been following that recipe since the days of Ronald
Reagan. His "wrecking crew" approach to government, which made the
cover of Time magazine last week? I myself made the same observation,
under the same title, about the administration of George W Bush.
The trends Trump personifies are going to destroy this country one
of these days. They've already done a hell of a job on the middle
But declaring it all so ghastly isn't going to halt these trends
or remove the reprobate from the White House. Waving a piece of paper
covered with mean words in Trump's face won't make him retreat to his
tower in New York. To make him do that you must understand where he
comes from, how he operates, why his supporters like him, and how we
might coax a few of them away.
The parade of the aghast will have none of that. Strategy is not
the goal; a horror-high is. And so its practitioners routinely rail
against Trump's supporters along with Trump himself, imagining
themselves beleaguered by a country they no longer understand nor
As an engineer, I've long related to the idea that you have to
understand something to change it -- at least to change it in a
deliberate and viable way -- but politics doesn't seem to work that
way. For nearly all of my life, the most powerful political motivator
has been disgust. And while that may seem like a recent bad trend,
I pretty clearly remember characters like Dick Nixon, Barry Goldwater,
and George Wallace. So it really doesn't bother me when people are
simply aghast at Trump without understanding the fine points. Sure,
at some point we need to get a better idea of what to do, but all
the present situation demands is resistance, and as people line up
to defend and demean Trump, those connections Frank wants us to
learn are getting made.
My tweet for the day:
Wasn't #VeteransDay originally Armistice Day (a celebration of peace at
the end of an unprecedentedly horrific war)? I guess when the US went
to a permanent war footing, they had to rename it.
Some scattered links this week:
Matthew Yglesias: The 4 most important stories in politics this week:
Democrats won a landslide in Virginia; New allegations surfaced about
Roy Moore; The House moved ahead with a tax bill; Senate Republicans
unveiled a different bill. Other Yglesias pieces this week:
Democrats ought to invest in Doug Jones's campaign against Roy Moore.
I agree, but less because I think "Roy Moore is dangerously unfit for
office" -- true enough, but he's angling to replace Jeff Sessions, who
was dangerously unfit himself -- than because I think Democrats should
challenge everywhere a reversal of the slide toward oligarchy would help
most of the people. There's a risk, of course, that Democrats may focus
so much on Moore's peculiar degeneracy they fail to make their best case,
but as Yglesias concludes, "hey, you never know."
Gary Cohn explains the GOP tax plan: "The most excited group out there
are big CEOs": easy to see why, as the main effect is to shore up
the already booming stock market, but Cohn sees more benefits in "the
whole trickle-down through the economy."
It's not just Virginia: Maine has a crucial lesson for Democrats:
"Medicaid expansion ran well ahead of Hillary Clinton, and that serves
as a potent reminder that the Democratic Party's basic bread-and-butter
promise of taxing rich people to provide useful public services is more
popular than the broader Democratic gestalt."
2 ways of reading Trump's objections to the AT&T/Time Warner
merger: Some hints that the Trump administration has surprisingly
found an antitrust case to get interested in, mostly because it involves
their arch-nemesis CNN. Still, would be a good thing if the merger didn't
go through. Last section subtitled "It would be nice to have a trustworthy
But we don't have a president like that. We have a president who lies
constantly, who disregards the norms of American government, who's openly
disdainful of the social function of a free press, and who's set up his
administration in a way that seems to generally sideline expertise while
opening the door to massive financial conflicts of interest.
A simple, boring lesson from Democrats' landslide in Virginia and
beyond: "There is no microtargeting magic -- when you win you do
Being out of power has boosted Democratic enthusiasm, making it easier
to recruit more and better candidates and easier to turn voters out for
lower profile elections. At the same time, Trump is broadly unpopular
nationwide which flips some voters into the D column while anti-inspiring
others to stay home. In an atmosphere like that, a lot of different kinds
of candidates using a lot of different kinds of strategies can win in a
lot of different kinds of places.
Democrats picked up 2 seats in the Georgia state legislature, too.
Notable fact here is that both seats were not only previously held by
Republicans, they were uncontested in 2016. Shows Democrats do better
when they actually run candidates.
Northam's win in the Virginia governor race shows the GOP is in big
What's really at stake in Tuesday's elections.
The real fix for gerrymandering is proportional representation.
The Republican tax plan's original sin: The big corporate tax cut,
especially the idée fixe of reducing the rate from 35% to 20%.
There's simply no way to make that work -- even with what amounts to a
long-term tax increase on middle incomes, which seems to be what
"reform" is adding up to.
Anne Applebaum: Trump is part of the Saudi story: As Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman consolidates his power base, he's arrested rivals
and charged them with "corruption" -- Applebaum notes that Putin and
Xi have leveled that same charge against their own rivals, and also:
But Trump is also part of the story. By his own example -- through his
disdain for courts and for the media, through his scorn for ethical
norms -- Trump has cast doubt on the Western model. He may even have
encouraged the Saudi prince more directly. Jared Kushner, Trump's
son-in-law, a living embodiment of American nepotism, visited Riyadh
for long talks -- officially to promote Mideast peace, but perhaps
business and politics came up, too -- in the days before the arrest.
The image of two princelings, scheming late into the night, makes a
textbook illustration of the decline of American prestige and American
values, even in a country that is closely allied to the United States.
Still, Saudi Arabia seems to have graduated from the allies that
follow America's lead to become (like Israel) an ally that "wags the
dog" according to its own peculiar logic. See several recent pieces:
Dean Baker: Blaming Inequality on Technology: Sloppy Thinking for the
Educated. Also by Baker (from Sept. 15), a review of Yanis Varoufakis'
Adults in the Room: The Sordid Tale of Greece's Battle Against Austerity
and the Troika.
Katheryn Brightbill: Roy Moore's alleged pursuit of a young girl is the
symptom of a larger problem in evangelical circles.
Nancy Cook: How Flynn -- and the Russia scandal -- landed in the West
Wing: This is amusing:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the early transition chief for a newly
elected Donald Trump, and his team had deep reservations about Flynn,
fearing the retired three-star Army general who had been ousted from
the Obama administration suffered from poor judgment and espoused
far-out ideas on foreign policy. . . .
But when Christie was fired from his transition perch on Nov. 11 --
replaced by soon-to-be Vice President Mike Pence -- Flynn and former
White House chief strategist Steve Bannon celebrated by tossing binders
full of potential personnel picks, carefully culled by Christie's team,
into trash bins with a sense of ceremonial glee.
Note that Christie's shortlist was long on generals -- in fact, it
doesn't appear he considered anyone else.
Cora Currier/Danielle Marie Mackey: Trump Administration Suddenly Cancels
Refugee Program That Saved Lives of Central American Children.
Peter Dreier: Most Americans Are Liberal, Even If They Don't Know It:
A lot of polling data, on issues rather than policies, e.g.: "78 percent
of Americans say we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of
money in politics"; "76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should
pay higher taxes."
Thomas Frank: Why have we built a paradise for offshore
Jacob Greene/Allison McManus: Mysterious Deaths and Forced Disappearances.
This is Egypt's U.S.-Backed War on Terror.
Gardiner Harris: State Department to Offer Buyouts in Effort to Cut Staff.
Well, what would Exxon do? Still, I find it incomprehensible that all of
Tillerson's efforts to eliminate useless State Dept. jobs have still left
an appointment in the works for Sam Brownback. Still, note this:
Some employees will not be eligible for the buyouts, including many
members of the security, information technology, medical and building
staffs, areas in which the department is trying to hire more people
or is offering bonuses for them to stay.
Fred Kaplan: Lost in Asia: "Trump's trip shows what happens when a
world leader is set adrift in the world with no strategy or goals."
Sarah Kliff: Obamacare just had its best week in months: Sign-ups
during the first week of open enrollment are up, despite Trump executive
orders to cut advertising and support. Maine approved a referendum to
expand Medicaid, and Virginia will lean more toward expanding.
Paul Krugman: Leprechaun Economics and Neo-Lafferism: One of a
series of posts on economist claims about growth under the Republicans'
"tax reform" bill. Due to several assumptions I don't begin to buy,
the theory is that lower corporate taxes will be matched by a massive
capital inflow that will increase GDP. Since such investment will
return profits abroad, Krugman argues that GNI (Gross National Income)
is the more relevant measure, and that will be much less than growth
in GDP (again, assuming that any such thing happens). "Leprechaun"
refers to Ireland, which has attracted a lot of foreign investment
with low corporate tax rates, so is the most relevant example (but
a very small country compared to the US, so effects are likely to
be much less notable here). Lafferism is the theory that tax cuts
generate such enormous economic growth they actually increase tax
revenues. Neo-Lafferism is the next formulation after Lafferism
itself has been proven to be total horseshit.
Dara Lind: Thousands of immigrants are losing their DACA protections
Robinson Meyer: Syria Is Joining the Paris Agreement. Now What?
Well, that leaves the United States as the only country to reject
the climate accord.
Charlie Savage: Trump Is Rapidly Reshaping the Judiciary. Here's How.
Jon Swaine: Offshore cash helped fund Steve Bannon's attacks on Hillary
Sunday, November 5. 2017
Again, a very late start, so this is very catch-as-catch-can.
Some scattered links this week:
Matthew Yglesias: 4 stories that drove politics this week: I moved
Yglesias' weekly summaries up top a couple weeks ago as I've found lately
that he's become a pretty good chronicler of the Trump travesty, which
especially as I've started to tune out myself makes for a useful intro
to whatever happened recently. This week's stories: We finally saw the
GOP's tax bill; Mueller revealed indictments -- and a guilty plea; Jeff
Sessions is back in the spotlight: specifically, for Russia stuff, going
back to his false testimony during his confirmation hearings; and, Jerome
Powell will be the next Federal Reserve chair. Other Yglesias pieces:
Republicans should admit to themselves they mostly don't want big
change: "It's a cranky old person party, not a policy visionary
The Republican tax plan, in one chart:
Big-picture summary is that over the first 10 years, the bill has:
- $1 trillion net tax cut for business owners
- $172 billion tax cut for people who inherit multi-million dollar estates
- $300 billion net tax cut for individuals.
Republicans changed their minds and now want to cut the mortgage
Jerome Powell, President Trump's reported choice to head the Federal
Reserve, explained: "Good news for people who like lax bank regulation."
Republicans promised a tax reform bill by today. Here's why they don't
have one: November 1. "Nobody knew taxes were so complicated."
Booker calls on antitrust regulators to start paying attention to workers.
Key word to add to your vocabulary is "monopsony":
Antitrust law normally comes up in the context of monopoly power,
the prospect that a company will control such a large share of output
that it can raise prices or reduce quality. But it also applies to
situations of monopsony power, in which market concentration
offers undue leverage over workers or upstream suppliers. Antitrust
regulators have consistently recognized the importance of the monopsony
issue when it comes to cartels between separate companies -- suing a
number of big Silicon Valley companies that had reached an illegal "no
poaching" agreement to depress engineers' wages -- but has not in recent
years appeared to recognize such concerns when conducting merger review.
. . .
Booker's letter starts with a premise that's now become common in
progressive circles: that the American economy is becoming broadly
more concentrated across a range of sectors. . . . At the same time,
corporate profits as a share of the overall economy are at an unusually
high level, the stock market is booming, and wage growth has been
incredibly restrained even as the economy has recovered from the
depths of the Great Recession.
Congressional Republicans are helping Trump with a big cover-up:
Several things here, including:
George W. Bush put his personal wealth in a blind trust. Jimmy Carter
sold his peanut farm. Barack Obama held all his assets in simple
diversified index funds. There is a way in which a modern president
with a modicum of integrity conducts himself, and Trump has refused
to do it.
Rather than liquidate his assets and put the proceeds in a trust,
Trump has simply turned over day-to-day management of the family
business to his two older sons -- sons who continue to serve as
surrogates and part of his political operation, even while his
oldest daughter and her husband serve as top White House aides.
Ivanka Trump is reeling in Chinese trademarks while Eric and Donald
Jr. do real estate deals in India. Trump is billing the Secret
Service six figures for the privilege of renting golf carts at
his golf courses. People with interests before the government can --
and do -- pay direct cash bribes to the president by joining his
Mar-a-Lago club or holding events at his hotel in Washington, DC. . . .
There's an interesting lesson in the fact that Paul Manafort is
being brought down by criminal money laundering and tax evasion
charges that are at best tangentially related to his work for
Trump's campaign -- there's a lot of white-collar crime happening
in America that people are getting away with. . . .
Manafort's criminal misconduct only came to light because he
happened to have stumbled into massive political scandal that put
his conduct under the microscope in a way that most rich criminals
By the same token, over the years Trump has been repeatedly fined
for breaking federal money laundering rules, been paid millions in
hush money to settle civil fraud claims, been caught breaking New
Jersey casino law, been caught violating the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act,
been caught violating federal securities law, been caught violating
New York nonprofit law, and -- of course -- been accused of multiple
counts of sexual assault.
Yet throughout this storied history of lawbreaking, Trump has never
faced a major criminal charge. He gets caught, he pays a civil penalty,
and he keeps on being a rich guy who enjoys rich-guy impunity -- just
Paul Ryan won't let indictments stop him from cutting taxes on the
Trump's response to indictments: "why aren't Crooked Hillary & the
Dems the focus?????"
The question that matters now: what will Republicans do when Trump fires
Mueller? "Probably nothing."
Tom Engelhardt: Doing Bin Laden's Bidding: I read (or maybe misread)
a turn of phrase today that describes America's "War on Terror" aptly:
"flailing forward." I always thought freedom meant you can choose what
to do, and therefore free people can refuse to do stupid things just
because they get taunted. Maybe Bin Laden didn't appreciate how much
destruction the US would wreak when he challenged the insecure egos of
American power, but he was certainly baiting the giant to blunder into
"the graveyard of empires" -- as Afghanistan was known even before 2001.
Looking back, 16 years later, it's extraordinary how September 11,
2001, would set the pattern for everything that followed. Each further
goading act, from Afghanistan to Libya, San Bernardino to Orlando,
Iraq to Niger, each further humiliation would trigger yet more of the
same behavior in Washington. After all, so many people and institutions --
above all, the U.S. military and the rest of the national security
state -- came to have a vested interest in Osama bin Laden's version
of our world. . . .
After all, Osama bin Laden managed to involve the United States in
16 years of fruitless wars, most now "generational" conflicts with no
end in sight, which would only encourage the creation and spread of
terror groups, the disintegration of order across significant parts
of the planet, and the displacement of whole populations in staggering
numbers. At the same time, he helped turn twenty-first-century Washington
into a war machine of the first order that ate the rest of the government
for lunch. He gave the national security state the means -- the excuse,
if you will -- to rise to a kind of power, prominence, and funding that
might otherwise have been inconceivable. In the process -- undoubtedly
fulfilling his wildest dreams -- he helped speed up the decline of the
very country that, since the Cold War ended, had been plugging itself
as the greatest ever.
That, of course, is old news. The new news here concerns Niger,
where four US special forces soldiers were recently killed despite
hardly anyone in America realizing they were there. What's happened
since is a recapitulation of the Afghanistan-Iraq-Libya disaster:
And suddenly U.S. Africa Command was highlighting its desire for more
money from Congress; the military was moving to arm its Reaper drones
in Niger with Hellfire missiles for future counterterrorism operations;
and Secretary of Defense Mattis was assuring senators privately that
the military would "expand" its "counterterrorism focus" in Africa.
The military began to prepare to deploy Hellfire Missile-armed Reaper
drones to Niger. "The war is morphing," Graham insisted. "You're going
to see more actions in Africa, not less; you're going to see more
aggression by the United States toward our enemies, not less; you're
going to have decisions being made not in the White House but out in
Rumors were soon floating around that, as the Washington Post
reported, the administration might "loosen restrictions on the U.S.
military's ability to use lethal force in Niger" (as it already had done
in the Trump era in places like Syria and Yemen). And so it expectably
went, as events in Niger proceeded from utter obscurity to the
near-apocalyptic, while -- despite the strangeness of the Trumpian
moment -- the responses came in exactly as anyone reviewing the last
16 years might have imagined they would.
All of this will predictably make things in central Africa worse,
not better, leading to . . . well, more than a decade and a half after
9/11, you know just as well as I do where it's leading. And there are
remarkably few brakes on the situation, especially with three generals
of our losing wars ruling the roost in Washington and Donald Trump now
lashed to the mast of his chief of staff.
Our resident expert on US Africa Command is Nick Turse, but while
this was happening, he was distracted by
A Red Scare in the Gray Zone.
Juliette Garside: Paradise Papers leak reveals secrets of the world
elite's hidden wealth. Also:
Jon Swaine/Ed Pilkington: The wealthy men in Trump's inner circle with
links to tax havens.
William Greider: What Killed the Democratic Party? Cites a recent
Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis. This appeared before
Donna Brazile: Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC,
which details the remarkable extent the Clinton campaign controlled the
DNC all through the primary season. Brazile's revelations are further
monetized in her book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and
Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House. Josh Marshall
attempts to mount a counterattack in
Donna Brazile Needs to Back Up Her Self-Serving Claims, insisting
that "There's zero advantage to re-litigating the toxic 2016 primaries."
Personally, I felt that Hillary Clinton had earned the right to tell her
side of the story in What Happened, so I see no further harm in
Brazile's Hacks. (I suppose I might draw a line if Debby
Wasserman-Schultz manages to find a publisher.) Still, the one thing
that keeps bugging me about all of the 2016 Democratic autopsies --
especially the Jonathan Allen/Amie Parnes Shattered: Inside Hillary
Clinton's Doomed Campaign -- is the nagging question: where did all
of the money Clinton raised go? And why didn't she use more of it to
build up the party she supposedly was the leader of?
Mike Konczal: Trump Is Creating a Grifter Economy.
German Lopez/Karen Turner: Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting:
what we know: "At least 26 people were killed . . . The shooter is
also dead following a brief chase." Also:
Texas church shooting: suspect named as at least 26 confirmed dead --
as it happened.
Noam Maggor: Amazon wants goodies and tax breaks to move its HQ to your
city. Say no thanks. I want to underscore that the practice of giving
tax breaks and incentives to companies that promise jobs is actually far
worse than a zero-sum "race to the bottom." For evidence specific to
Amazon, look no further than the perks they received to open a distribution
center in Coffeyville, KS. Then try to find it. They've already closed it,
moving on to greener pastures.
Mike McIntire/Sasha Chavkin/Martha M Hamilton: Commerce Secretary's
Offshore Ties to Putin 'Cronies'. Also,
Jesse Drucker: Kremlin Cash Behind Billionaire's Twitter and Facebook
Simon Tisdall: Trump's Asia tour will expose his craving for the approval
of despots: Not just despots. I got stuck watching Japan's Prime
Minister blowing smoke up Trump's ass in their first press appearance.
Trump's vanity clearly hasn't escaped the notice of world leaders.
Alex Ward: Bowe Bergdahl isn't going to prison. But he is getting
a "dishonorable discharge" -- you know, like the shooter in Texas got.
Among those who thought the sentence too lenient:
Donald Trump made it a campaign issue in 2016, calling Bergdahl a
"traitor," even suggesting that he should be executed. About an hour
after the ruling by a military judge, Trump tweeted his thoughts:
"The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace
to our Country and to our Military."
Of course, Bergdahl isn't the only soldier Trump has disparaged
for "getting captured."
Sarah Wildman: Saudi Arabia announces arrest of billionaire prince
Alwaleed bin Talal. Without specifically commenting on Prince
Alwaleed, Trump evidently approves:
Mark Landler: Trump Tells Saudi King That He Supports Modernization
Drive. Also by Wildman:
Mueller has enough evidence to charge Michael Flynn.