One of the more remarkable features of this election season has been the way Donald Trump’s movement has taken the rest of the country by surprise. When I talk to both Republicans and Democrats about the Trump phenomenon, they ask me over and over, “Who are these people?” His success represents an uprising of a voting segment that was previously politically invisible, perhaps because a lot of educated people in cities and suburbs live in a self-segregated cultural bubble.
I’ve met hundreds of Trump supporters, and they’re too various to generalize about. But in a segment on Republican divisions on WBUR’s On Point yesterday, a man called in who voiced, in particularly pointed and articulate fashion, a lot of the themes I commonly hear from Trump’s base. Don from Whetstone, Kentucky, identified himself as “a hillbilly misogynist racist from down here in Appalachia.” Here’s what he had to say:
Here’s what I’m sayin’. If you vote for Trump, could it not just be that you’re a workin’ dude who got destroyed by NAFTA like my old man? Couldn’t it just be you’re like one of my uncles who can’t dig coal anymore ’cause Obama won’t let him? Can you not just be a family guy who’s got three kids he’s trying to support who knows the TPP is just gonna destroy more jobs? Can he not just be a guy working for a wage that you know is probably $3 less on the hour because there’s illegal labor all over the country?
I mean, where's common sense?
I wonder if Bill Kristol, I wonder how much coal he’s dug in his life, you know what I'm saying? How many 16-hour shifts has he worked in a factory making 11 bucks an hour? I couldn’t care less what these fools have to say.
Look, I’m a working man. I work 13, 14 hours every day. I got two jobs, I got three kids, I got a wife. I’m not a misogynist. I got a mom, I like her. I got sisters, I like them. I got a wife, I really like her. So I like ladies, I like women, I try to take care of them as best I can.
I’ve always voted Republican, and I vote Democrat on the state level because the federal Democrats are out of their minds. But so are Republicans on the federal level now. I don’t care what party you are. Trump’s a blowhard Yankee moron. I get it. But he’s against NAFTA, he’s against the TPP, he doesn’t want to play empire. Pat Buchanan likes him. That’s good enough for me.
Yesterday I quoted a reader about the book The Revolt of the Masses, by Jose Ortega y Gasset, which was published in 1929 but is uncomfortably relevant in the age of climate-change denialism and of Donald Trump.
A reader named Paul, in Texas, objects to the reasoning in a post I cited as a guide to Revolt. This was Ted Gioia’s 2014 essay “The Smartest Book About Our Digital Age Was Published in 1929.” Paul makes a point I should have seen and stressed:
I object somewhat to Gioia's conflation of feedback concerning taste and feedback concerning facts.
As you note, the digital age seems to have trouble accepting "elite" consensus regarding complex topics such as climate change (and I would add gun control, evolution and tax policy, among many other subjects where the vast majority of scientists, economists, etc., accept certain basic facts that are rejected by large swaths of the public). This is clearly problematic.
Less so, however, are the trends Gioia cites: The reliance on Yelp or Amazon over a professional critic's advice on where to eat or what to buy. These are matters of taste, and in that case, it makes perfect sense for someone to rely on the opinions of those they consider will lead them to an enjoyable experience – which may be the New York Times food critic recommending an excellent place for fine dining, or it may be Yelp reviews leading you to a great greasy dive. If I like trashy horror movies, relying on the LA Times' movie critic is probably not going to help me find my next favorite flick, but perusing the IMDb reviews – or checking my Facebook feed, or asking my brother-in-law – might.
I bring this up because it seems to me Gioia's conflation here is actually part of the broader problem he's lamenting. While on the one hand, many people seem to make the mistake that because their friends and Internet communities can be trusted to give them good advice regarding their shared tastes, those places can be trusted to give them good knowledge regarding facts, Gioia makes the mistake in the opposite direction: Because the populist strains of the Internet so often lead people astray regarding factuality, it cannot be trusted to provide good information regarding personal preferences. In both cases, the problem is a lack of discernment between when my friends or message board buddies can be trusted, and when I need to consult the consensus of experts.
Another note to similar effect:
There is a mismatch in your piece on The Revolt of the Masses that deserves a second look.
You mention climate change and Trump's (and, to be honest, many national Repubicans') difficulty in coping with facts, but the part of Gioia's piece that you quote is all about opinions - restaurant reviews and comments on Amazon.
If I'm looking to understand the context of a chef's innovations and how that fits into historical and current culinary movements, then a restaurant reviewer might be the appropriate source. But I doubt anyone goes to Yelp for that perspective, and I'd much rather get a sampling of opinions of people with unrefined palates like mine as a proxy for how I might like the dinner. It might be interesting to know why the reviewer liked or did not like a particular restaurant, but that might actually have very little value in predicting how _I_ will like the restaurant. Similarly, an Atlantic(!) book review is good for some purposes, but for many purposes Amazon reviews (when taken in aggregate) are perfectly adequate.
Facts in general and facts about climate change in particular aren't like this. If we disagree on whether we liked a restaurant - we will just disagree. We can disagree on whether climate change is happening, but the climate doesn't care about our opinions and will keep on changing regardless.
The questions that your post raised for me are (1) why don't Ortega y Gasset's masses today make a distinction between the relevance of expert opinion to facts versus opinions (versus considered opinions - i.e. opinions where you really have to understand a situation in order for your opinion to be anything more than bloviating) and (2) did they ever or is the real change he was talking about a move from accepting expert pronouncements on 'everything' (fact/opinion/considered opinion) to accepting expert pronouncements on nothing?
To try to explore these questions, I think I'll pick up a copy of the book and see what an expert has to say!
And just before press time a third note has just come in, directly related to the argument of these previous two:
Your post about masses vs. experts brought two contradictory thoughts to mind.
1) One the one hand, if given a choice between Yelp vs. professional restaurant critic, the masses have a good point. When given a choice between "big data" and so-called expert opinion, the data is obviously superior. (This assumes the data is good - there is the problem of fake reviews etc.)
2) One the other hand, when crowd wisdom is NOT based on evidence, but group-think, social norms, traditions, etc., experts who have data, research, and professional consensus behind them are always the winners. Crowds may ignore the experts or the data, for all sorts of reasons, which leads to persistent wide-spread belief in pseudo-science, religion, climate change denial, and so forth.
So the crucial difference is whether opinions are based on evidence or not. Evidence trumps crowds, but other things being equal, multiple opinions are better than one.
Why do we trust our own opinions and our local crowd more than is warranted? I think the answer is that evolution has shaped us for a life lived in small communities where the experience coming from our local environment, cohesion of the tribe, and our standing within that tribe, are paramount for survival. We have not evolved to think globally and strictly scientifically and rationally. The following well-known findings from psychology and cognitive science all reflect different aspects of the "masses vs. experts" phenomenon described in your post:
- Overconfidence effect: we think we're better/smarter/competent than we really are
- Dunning-Kruger effect: the less competent we actually are, the more overconfident we are
- In-group bias: we favor people who are more like ourselves (either physically or socially)
- Attribution bias: we attribute negatives in others to inherent characteristics, but to circumstance when it comes to ourselves or people in our in-group
- Confirmation bias: we tend to not register or discount evidence that contradicts beliefs already held (this is very helpful in disregarding experts making good points that don't agree with our views, or for believing in conspiracy theories)
- Conformity bias: we change our own judgments (even when based directly on perception) to agree with our group (the famous Asch experiment).
How can we overcome these built-in biases? An optimist would say that culture (education, positive change in social norms, etc.) can overcome them. A pessimist would say that it will take a long, long time for evolutionary change to catch up with our changing world and nudge these biases in a different direction.
I made one very bad call about the 2016 election, which I quickly confessed! It was the same bad call most other people made: that Donald Trump’s lack of political experience and knowledge would make him the Herman Cain of this campaign cycle, and he would not get this far in the race. (I’m sticking by my call that he is not going to become president.)
To be fair, I made a very good call two cycles earlier concerning the Trump of that era, Sarah Palin. As soon as her selection was announced as John McCain’s running mate in 2008, I wrote in this space (in the middle of the night, from China) that despite her then-red-hot popularity she would be a huge liability for the ticket. Why? Because running for national office is a lot, lot harder than it looks. And if you come to it with no experience, you are simply guaranteed to make a lot of gaffes.
Let’s go to the charts. Here’s what I wrote when McCain announced her as his choice:
Unless you have seen it first first-hand, as part of the press scrum or as a campaign staffer, it is almost impossible to imagine how grueling the process of running for national office is… The candidates have to answer questions and offer views roughly 18 hours a day, and any misstatement on any topic can get them in trouble. Why do candidates so often stick to a stump speech that they repeat event after event and day after day? Because they've worked out the exact way to put their positions on endless thorny issues -- Iraq, abortion, the Middle East, you name it -- and they know that creative variation mainly opens new complications.
You can see where I am going with this, after Trump’s misadventures of the past week:
The point about every one of those issues is that there is a certain phrase or formulation that might seem perfectly innocent to a normal person but that can cause a big uproar. Without going into the details, there is all the difference in the world between saying "Taiwan and mainland China" versus "Taiwan and China." The first is policy as normal; the second -- from an important US official -- would light up the hotline between DC and Beijing.
So back in 2008 I was arguing that in just two months on the campaign trail, no beginner in national-level campaigning, like Palin, could learn all the lingo on these issues. Thus gaffes were sure to ensue, as they did. (This accurate call is all the more heroic in retrospect, since we’ve now learned that I was practically at death’s door, in China, when I filed that post! Ah the plucky life of the reporter.)
Until this point in Trump’s campaign, he would seem to be the walking refutation of all such established wisdom. Gaffes? Never heard of ‘em! I’ll say whatever comes to mind, and the crowds will cheer for more!
The difference we’ve seen, with Trump’s sequential fumbles on abortion policy, and nuclear policy, and war-and-peace in Europe and Asia, etc is that until the past ten days he’s managed to be “outrageous” mainly on personal-performance matters. He’s been (as often noted) a figure straight from pro wrestling. He is not Rush Limbaugh called from behind the microphone; he’s Howard Stern. You can’t make fun of John McCain for his war record, can you??? Trump could! And did. You can’t mock your opponents to their face — Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted — and be taken seriously, can you??? Trump could! And did. The equally outrageous Howard Stern-style policy claims he made — let’s build a wall! and make Mexico pay for it — somehow didn’t register as “gaffes,” precisely because there is no chance whatsoever he could actually deliver on them. It was all in the fashion of pre-bout preening before a wrestling match: “I’m gonna smash him down so hard he’ll be cryin’ for his Mama, and the only words he’ll remember will be Wee, wee, wee all the way home!”
The setup of the GOP “debates” so far allowed Trump to get away with this, at least with his base. The “point” of each debate was to see who could bully or disconcert whom. And in his omnipresent “interviews,” Trump also got away with shunting any question into a discussion of how strong his polls were, how successful he had been, and how great things would be when he was in charge. Leading to this Onion-esque but apparently serious emission yesterday:
Over the past two weeks, we’ve had the Washington Post editorial board interview, with its revelation of the vacuum that is Trump’s knowledge of policy; and the long NYT interview with Trump’s loose talks about bringing nukes to Korea and Japan; and his fateful interview with Chris Matthews, who to his credit was the first person really to push Trump for an answer on abortion; and the similar gaping-emptiness of Trump’s knowledge revealed in his Washington Post interview today.
What’s different now is Trump is being forced to talk about actual policy choices, like abortion, as opposed to talking about his own machismo, or striking purely symbolic “we’re gonna win again!” poses. And that he’s actually being forced, most impressively by Chris Matthews. You can never count him out, but the damage is beginning to show.
He is a more resourceful performer than Sarah Palin was, and he has changed politics more than she could. But she is actually better informed than he is, and finally that is catching up with him. That’s what we’re seeing now.
As Donald Trump moves closer to the Republican nomination, his public presentation becomes increasingly deranged, as with this notorious item from last night (as discussed by Emma Green here):
Barring the unforeseen, one of the five people now running will become Commander in Chief next year, and most likely one of these two: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. With that in mind, and before I need to go offline for several days on a different project, here is one more installment from readers on the candidates and the choice.
1) Trump at the WaPo. I mentioned yesterday that if the idea of “being qualified” still applied to presidential candidates, the hour Trump spent with the Washington Post’s editorial board would have instantly and conclusively disqualified him. He displayed real understanding of no topics, and gross mis-understanding of many. He shunted all answers back to the two themes he can discuss: how he is a winner relative to losers like low-energy Jeb and Little Marco; and how big his hands are. If you think I’m exaggerating, read it for yourself. Trump used to be amusing, in a pro-wrestling way. Now he is manifestly not-normal, in an ominous way.
Why bring this up? A reader who works in the defense industry emphasizes one particular mismatch of Trump’s views and the realities of foreign policy:
At the Post, Trump said, amongst other things:
“I think John Kerry’s deal with Iran is one of the worst things that I’ve ever seen negotiated of any kind. It’s just a horrible giveaway...Well, I think, number one, we shouldn’t have given the money back. I think, number two, we should have had our prisoners before the negotiations started. We should have doubled up the sanctions.…. And I think it’s going to just lead, actually, to nuclear problems. I also think it’s going to be bad for Israel. It’s a very bad deal for Israel.”
Where to start?
First of all, we didn't "give" any money to Iran. Other countries had been holding Iran's money, at our request, while negotiations were on going.
Secondly, what evidence is there that the other P5+1 members would go along with doubling sanctions? It was hard enough to get China and Russia on board with sanctions to begin with. And what evidence is there that Iran would capitulate in the face of increased sanctions?
The goal of the negotiations was the minimize the threat of a nuclear Iran. Increased sanctions did not reduce that threat without direct negotiations. Iran had 164 centrifuges in 2003. By the time President Obama took office, that number went up to 8,000. Four years later, the number was 22,000. And all of this happened in the face of brutal sanctions. For Trump to blithely say doubling sanctions would secure the release of those hostages flies in the face of fact because sanctions failed to do what they were implemented to do to begin with….
So, yes, positions and reasoning like this, in a sane political climate, would disqualify Trump as a candidate. But we're not in a sane political climate, and I believe something that your friend Mike Lofgren has referred to as "anti-knowledge" has taken root within the GOP. Thus, ignorance of facts is worn as a badge of honor.
God help us if Trump's elected.
2) What about mental health? A reader on the East Coast writes:
Question for the psychotherapists out there: Aren’t there enough statements and actions by Trump that are now part of the public record to enable a professional to render some sort of diagnosis? Does one really have to have the guy on the couch in an office to get a better sense of him?
I believe that most of Trump’s behavior in this campaign is not strategic or a deliberate effort to win the Presidency. His constant attacks on Meghan Kelly, which Fox News as labels a “sick obsession”, his predictable personal attack on anyone who criticizes or disagrees with him (almost all of which are gratuitous and, if anything, hurt his chances), his pattern of constantly referring to his wealth, his success as a business man, his intelligence, his constant lying (which seems to be something of a compulsion), his constant referring to his polling numbers and the size of his audiences (much of which is grossly exaggerated), his refusal to acknowledge, contrary to all evidence and the public record, his numerous business failures—all of this suggest a man not in control of his behavior. It also suggests a man who is almost entirely un-self-aware.
There’s just so much material to work from here. One would think that a competent professional could make a reasonable armchair diagnosis of Trump.
I’ve changed my mind about this. Earlier I posted some messages from readers asking whether Trump had some identifiable personality disorder. Now I think there’s no point in even wondering about arm’s length medical diagnoses: what matters is what he says and does.
If the Trump who is making these boasts and sending out these Tweets were, underneath it all, the mentally healthiest and most balanced person in America, that wouldn’t make any difference. The statements he has placed on the public record are in themselves grounds for concern. No one whose public statements are this thin-skinned, impulsive, defensive, and seemingly uncontrolled has any business being in command of the world’s most powerful military force.
3) “The AIPAC speech represented what I don’t like about Hillary Clinton.” Through the Obama era, AIPAC has essentially become an operating arm of Likud’s interests in Israel and the Republican Party’s in the United States. Peter Beinart makes that case in Haaretz; it was starkly evident during last year’s bitter debate on the Iran-nuclear deal, which AIPAC did its best (and worst) to kill.
The Republican speeches at AIPAC this week were predictably pro-Netanyhau and anti-Obama, Trump’s childishly so. (For which the new president of AIPAC apologized, the day after Trump had appeared and received a standing ovation.) Bernie Sanders composed what I considered an excellent speech for AIPAC about the route to sustainable peace in the Middle East; unfortunately he wasn’t able to deliver it in person. Since (according to Sanders) AIPAC declined to let him speak by video, as some previous Republican candidates have done, he merely issued the written text. Nonetheless the speech deserves notice: It was in the spirit of what Kevin Rudd, then prime minister of Australia, called his “true friend” (zhengyou) address to the Chinese government in 2008, in which he said that genuine, respectful friendship required pointing out uncomfortable areas of disagreement as well as the comforting platitudes.
With the exception of defending the Iran deal, Hillary Clinton pretty much stuck to the comforting themes before AIPAC. That is where a reader in Minnesota picks up, and explains why, as a Democrat, he is having a hard time with her:
I just read your post which began with the Safire quote describing Ms. Clinton as a congenital liar. [This was William Safire of the NYT, using that term for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton twenty years ago.]
I speak to many of my friends, family, and colleagues about today’s political mess, and most have never described Ms. Clinton as a congenital liar. However, most of my circle of acquaintances (including some staunch Clinton supporters) have admitted / concluded that Ms. Clinton will say and do whatever it takes to become President, regardless of the effect on everyday working Americans or her comments’ relationship to any objective truth.
Those who support her while admitting the above claim that she simply deserves the office——but have never been able to provide a cogent argument as to why she, and she alone, deserves to be President. Those who do not support her are quite worried that she will actually expand upon the NeoCon expansionism, warmongering, and international intervention behavior of the Bush Administration. I have come to believe this is correct, and very troubling.
Ms. Clinton’s speech to AIPAC left little doubt that she intends to demonstrate that she is far less cautious and far more interested in expanding our global influence and international interventions than the arguably over-cautious President Obama.
You and I have traveled extensively over the years. I just returned from Indonesia, where the American election is gaining a lot of attention, and not in a very positive way.
As I continue to watch and study the behavior of all the candidates, it seems that Ms. Clinton would become the most internationally aggressive of all (with the possible exception of the certifiably sociopathic Ted Cruz). If the Brussels attacks are significant in any way, it seems that they signal (among many other things) that continued expansion and pro-Israel blind support cannot possibly bring us any closer to peace and security——and are more likely to bring the opposite result.
I fear a Clinton Presidency for these and many other reasons——and I don’t believe I am the only thoughtful person who would have to think long and hard about what I will do if we end up with a Clinton vs. Trump election.
Writing in Bernie Sanders name may be dysfunctional and perhaps even wrong------but I cannot imagine any other choice that would allow my conscience to remain at peace.
I have come to expect that almost every politician tells the occasional (if not the regular) lie——except for your former boss and my favorite President of my lifetime. [JF note: This would be Jimmy Carter.] Lying is not something that I fear nearly as much as the pursuit of international expansionism, warmongering, propping up tyrants, and our ongoing meddling in far too many foreign nations’ internal affairs.
4) “Nothing has given me such hope in years.” Another reader from the Midwest, who I believe also thinks of herself as a Democrat, is similarly dissatisfied but sees reasons for hope in the Trump campaign:
Academics and their groupie pundits have talked about the ‘hollowing out’ of the middle/working classes for years, but politicians have been helpless to do anything except change the subject.
One thing for sure, neither the Republicans nor Democrats are able to reform themselves. Only something like a meteor hitting them from the outside (a/k/a Trump) can start a re-alignment. The Sanders campaign has its own role, playing the dead canary warning Democrats of toxic times ahead.
And they deserve it. Ever since President Reagan broke PATCO as the first, most destructive wave of steel and auto plant closings surged, Republicans have been recklessly caught up in unsolvable wedge issues and Democrats mired in narrow single-issue ‘movement’ politics, each feeding on each other. Meanwhile, the economy lost its productive muscle and began its decades-long tilt (descent) towards finance and oligarchy.
Maybe it takes a demogogue to shake things up. It would be wrong to think all these Trump supporters are racist deadbeats, as too many liberals are quick to judge. One Trump supporter on TV explained, “the Blacks have their programs, the immigrants have theirs, why not some help for us.” Representing laid off 50 year olds now working part-time, underpaid jobs this sentiment looks more like common sense than racism to me.
And who knows? Maybe the clash in Chicago [at the cancelled Trump rally] will lead to that long-sought-after-serious ‘talk about race’ that politicians talk about but never describe. You can’t get closer than thousands of white middle/working class Trump supporters standing in line for an arena rally facing a polygot collection of mostly middle/working class minority and immigrant students worried about their own futures. Close body contact of a volatile and dangerous type.
Which way all this will go is unclear. No one's going to beat Trump calling him racist and xenophobic. Only someone equally as bold and icon-shattering as Trump can compete. Few policy wonks qualify.
There’s no turning back now, however, not to the Hillarys and Jebs, the Pelosi’s and McConnels. Nothing in the public sphere has given me such hope for years.
5) “I feel no passion for the Democratic field.” In a less hopeful vein, a Democrat in Texas weighs in:
I volunteered for Obama in 2007-08 and voted for him twice, and think he has been a great success under difficult circumstances. Not perfect, but still very good and even historic in many ways that you’ve written about. I’m in my late 40s and he is without a doubt the only president who has ever aroused strong emotions and with whom I feel a genuine connection.
I feel nothing like that for either of the Dem candidates this time. Many of my friends are passionate Bernie supporters. I just don’t get it and have found myself resisting arguments with my friends. To me, he is Ralph Nader with a ‘D’ next to his name. As one of your other readers stated, I fear he would be a very ineffective president who would damage liberalism for a long time. I question his temperament and particularly his ability to withstand adversity (these are particular areas of strength for Obama). Bernie becomes irate, defensive, even whiny, when subjected to tough questions by reporters, and his incessant complaining about media coverage is just annoying. What will he do as President when the Tea Party Congress craps all over his proposals, or when Putin or Bibi attempts to humiliate him publicly?...
I wish Elizabeth Warren were running because our choices are uninspiring. I have very mixed feelings about Hillary even though I voted for her in the primary. Bottom line for me is that despite her flaws, I think she will be a reasonably effective president. I worry about her coziness with Wall Street and her judgment in moments of crisis, domestic and international.
I did not like her recent hawkish speech to AIPAC and worry that she will squander the good will Obama has managed to build in the Islamic world. She seems to struggling a little to adapt her sometimes dated political rhetoric to the current landscape (example: her unfortunate comments about the Reagans and AIDS, her awkward attempts to address mass incarceration and the Black Lives Matter movement).
I would like to see our home grown Dems here in San Antonio, Julian and Joaquin Castro, move into more prominent roles in the future as I think they have great potential. But I’m not sure a VP slot makes sense this cycle. I can see a lot of older white voters hesitant to vote for ticket that includes a woman and a Latino.
I’m also very curious to see what Obama’s post-presidential career looks like. He’s still pretty young and I can’t imagine him idle for long, nor can I imagine him following Clinton’s path of creating a foundation. I think he has much more to contribute.
6) The nightmare of strong women. A male reader sends this list:
Hillary Clinton is far from the first strong woman in public life to be slandered relentlessly by her political opponents and those offended by feminine leadership. Let us take a brief tour.
Wu Zetian (624 - 705) was the only female emperor of China. Despite being a strong ruler who governed well, her reputation as a scheming, ruthless woman willing to do anything to gain and keep power overwhelmed her accomplishments.
Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122 - 1204) was Queen of France, then Queen of England, and the mother of three kings of England. She was highly educated, and played an important role in the political and military struggles during the latter part of Henry II’s reign as King of England. In the popular imagination, however, her reputation was formed by fanciful stories of her leading a group of decadent nobles in scandalous sexual practices, and a vicious rumor that she had murdered one of Henry’s mistresses.
Isabeau of Bavaria (1370 - 1435) became Queen of France at the age of fifteen when she married Charles VI. Caught up in vicious power struggles when Charles’s mental illness left him unable to rule, Queen Isabeau was accused of about every crime possible, including adultery and witchcraft. This reputation lasted until 20th-century historians reviewed the evidence and discovered that she was intelligent, well-educated, pious, devoted to her children, and an effective ruler in her husband’s place.
Catherine de Medici (1519 - 1589) was Queen of France from 1547 to 1559 and played a leading role in the Byzantine power struggles among the French nobility during the Wars of Religion between Catholics and Protestants. Though clearly no better or worse than the Bourbons and Guises and other rivals for power, Catherine—as not only a woman but a foreigner, being the daughter of Lorenzo de Medici of Florence—got most of the blame for a host of poisonings, assassinations, and political back-stabbings.
Catherine the Great (1729-96) ruled Russia for more than thirty years. Compared with other Russian emperors, she was clearly above average as a reformer and a supporter of Enlightenment ideals. Like her male counterparts, she took lovers, but the stories told about her falsely accused her not just of licentiousness, but of perversion. These slanders culminated in the rumor that she died from a stroke suffered while attempting to have sexual intercourse with a stallion.
Empress Dowager Cixi of China (1835 -1908) was a remarkable woman who began her imperial career as a lowly concubine but ended up as the mother of the heir to the throne and, as Regent, the nominal ruler of China for decades. Surrounded by powerful factions in a dying empire, Cixi successfully navigated among them but was slandered as vicious, sexually perverse, manipulative, extravagant, power-hungry, and so on.
So is Hillary the devious, lying, scheming, ambitious, ruthless harridan that the Republicans say she is? Sure. And do you know the story of the servant girl that Cixi murdered by throwing her down a well?
Thanks for the messages, see you in a few days, and Happy Easter.
The personal-insult war underway last night between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz brings the campaign down to a level hard to imagine even in the days of “Little Marco” and “small hands.” If the concept of being “qualified” for the presidency still had any salience, Trump’s astonishing meeting with the WashingtonPost editorial board this week (transcript here) would have instantly and conclusively removed him from the race. It was not his inability and/or refusal to engage any point of substance that was so remarkable—and so much worse than with, say, Sarah Palin or Rick Perry. Rather it was his seventh-grade-locker-room obsession with “size” issues, as Conor Friedersdorf very convincingly demonstrates.
How did we get here? One of the most useful explanations I’ve seen is from E.J. Dionne in his new book Why the Right Went Wrong. I’d urge you to read it yourself — but if you’d like an overview, here is a discussion I did with him last month, at the Kentucky Author Forum in Louisville. A video version has just gone up on the Kentucky Educational Television site, with a good description of E.J.’s argument by Patrick Reed.
Dionne starts this book by saying, “The history of contemporary American conservatism is a story of disappointment and betrayal,” and he goes on to connect that 50-year pattern (since the Barry Goldwater days) to the fury of today’s GOP. Wave after wave of conservative leaders, Dionne says, have promised their base that they finally can produce sweeping rightwing changes to undo the Democrats’ handiwork. Wave after wave of conservative leaders is unable to do so. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can’t undo Obamacare; John Roberts turns into Earl Warren (from the right’s point of view); and a one-time Tea Party darling like Marco Rubio sells out on an immigration deal. Everyone’s a RINO! So it’s time to double down. This road leads to Cruz and Trump.
Again, for the full version consult this very illuminating book. Also consider the video below. [CB note: Watch here if the video doesn’t appear.] Thanks to our friends in Kentucky for putting on this forum.
A reader who is a mental-health professional in Australia responds to speculation in some previous posts (notably here) that Donald Trump’s public persona meets many of the criteria of actual mental disorders: (Emphasis added in his note.)
I am responding to the comment made by a clinical psychology doctoral student… I think that your reader made a very compelling case in their first paragraph as to why we can’t “safely say that Donald Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder”; namely that this requires extensive quantitative and qualitative assessment over a period of time with the individual’s personal engagement. Also, it's hard enough for those with NPD to seek help, without thinking they're going to be compared to this whole mess!
However, they missed one incredibly important reason why he probably doesn’t have a personality disorder: Trump’s narcissism is part of the product he’s selling.
Trump is one of the world’s most successful salespeople of a personal brand, a reality TV star and an American politician. Self assured attention seeking is the key to success in all these arenas. Trump’s had a long history of seeing how much people like him when he shows no doubt.
I think people are struggling to determine how much of what Trump does is a performance. But, the difference between performance and self-perception is vital. The lack of empathy is a performance of his non-PC persona. His disinterest in listening to experts is part of his ‘Übermensch of the people’ act. His desire to be seen as exceptional and to be admired by others is ultimately no different from that of any other presidential campaign pitch.
I would argue, however, that Trump’s inner world, how he really perceives himself and relates to others remains very much a mystery. That aspect, the self-perception, is crucial to diagnosing personality disorders. You would know better than I, but I imagine there is much about a politician’s inner world that we don’t see from the public performance.
Trump should not be subjected to armchair diagnoses. Not just because it’s a cheap shot, not just because it’s a profound misunderstanding of clinical psychology and an injustice to those who do suffer from personality disorders, but because the claim that Trump is mentally ill is too easy and too comforting.
The ‘disordered’ Trump character is the twisted reflection the ‘hopelessly aloof’ Obama caricature that some hold in their head. We struggle to empathise with those who seem to be pitching their message to someone else. It’s part of the same inability to even attempt to understand the other that drives political animosity in your country and mine (look up Clive Palmer if you want the low-rent Australia version of Trump). Writing people off as mentally ill absolves us from needing to engage with a point of view that needs to be engaged with, regardless of how toxic it is.
Trump is Trump. You can’t diagnose him; the disease is in the political system. In the partisan politics of the current era there’s never been a happier warrior, because he’s completely at home there.
Good luck with that one.
And who is this Clive Palmer, referred to above? He’s the person you see pictured below, with a follow-up explanation from the Australian reader about why the comparison with Trump is illuminating.
From the Australian mental-health practitioner:
The more I see of what's happening in America right now, the more convinced I am that we really dodged a bullet over here with Australia's very own Trump, Clive Frederick Palmer.
Up to a point, the stories seem remarkably similar. Take one eccentric/absurd business man (greatest hits: announcing that he was building his own replica of the Titanic, getting his football team kicked out of the country's premier league for bad business practices, opening a dinosaur park where the dinosaur burnt down) with delusions of grandeur.
Add in a bid for leadership of the country, funded by his personal wealth, with a populist campaign that promises the moon. Stir through a climate of animosity towards 'politics as usual' that's tainted both major parties Finish up with a scattershot of policies drawn from the left and right side of politics, with no unifying philosophy beyond "things will be better!" and "let's make more money!".
What saved us is the parliamentary system. Palmer had been chased out of party politics years ago, and there is no way in our political system that anyone can ride a populist wave all the way to the top because the party hacks can trip you up a hundred times along the way. Palmer had to start his own party and scurry to find legitimate candidates for both houses of parliament in time for the election….
Minor parties here need to build themselves over successive elections by demonstrating that they're actually legitimate about their values and about being a serious part of the political system. How's the Palmer United Party doing in it's first term? Well two of the three Senators have left the party citing cronyism and abuse. Palmer was taken to court by Chinese investors for misusing their funds. His old nickel refinery has gone into voluntary administration and sacked its workforce, after having donated heavily to his campaign. His bizarre behavior in office and the ever-present whiff of corruption have pretty much ended any hope of re-election. And the Titanic II still hasn't been built.
The American system has a lot of advantages, but I'm not sure how well it holds up to snake-oil salesmen at times like this.
To round out today’s internationally themed dispatches, a reader in Canada says that the Trump era has already arrived there:
We in Toronto have already elected Donald Trump, in the person of Rob Ford, a populist, wealthy son of a demanding father who made a political point of not owing anyone anything.
If our experience offers any guide, the election of Donald Trump would lead to disaster for the United States, and a worse disaster for Donald Trump. By the end of his first term, even his worst enemies would pity him. The United States might well simply lose four years, in the sense that Rob Ford's term as mayor stopped some important initiatives cold and brought no new ones to the table.
Of course, losing direction in a city government, even an alpha world city, has many fewer potential consequences than dysfunctional or even malignant government in the planet's leading economic and military power. Unlike Donald Trump. Rob Ford had and has expertise in responsive government; he got elected partly on his well earned reputation as the quickest councillor to return phone calls. Unfortunately, even a major city mayor cannot handle the whole business of a city by returning phone calls, and most analysis I have seen suggests that Rob Ford quickly found himself well out of his depth as mayor. The mismatch between Donald Trump and the skill set required of an American president appears much greater.
Again with minimal set-up, let’s go straight to reader views on why so many people can sound so angry about Hillary Clinton. In the previous installment, we heard from readers who said that the anti-HRC reaction boiled down mainly to sexism. Today, assenting and dissenting views.
Let’s remember the history. A reader scolds me for amnesia:
HRC as "congenital liar" is actually a quote from William Saffire. Surely you knew that: [From January 1996]
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.”
Ah, yes, it comes back to me now. On the other hand, to chafe the reader, I also remember that the influential-at-the-time Republican columnist for the NYT was actually William Safire.
She’s too much of a moderate. From a female reader on the West Coast:
I have been supporting Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party’s nomination, but only in part because I share his Social Democratic policy proposals. Just as important to me are what I see as some ways in which Secretary Clinton in the past has acted or voted that are evidence of the weaknesses that political moderates can get lost in.
The two prime examples for me are her talk about “super predators" in supporting the changes that led to mass incarceration, and her vote for the Iraq war. In both cases I think she did these partly as a way of influencing Reagan Democrats to come back to the Democratic Party fold. The “super predator” meme is a concession to implicit bias and the vote for the Iraq war to me represented giving in to the fear of being labeled soft on defense.
I am not opposed at all to speaking to the concerns of those Democrats who voted for Reagan; I knew some of them in my days as a machinist.
What bothers me is conceding to wrong ideas or people’s misunderstandings. Those folks were my friends, and where I thought it necessary I engaged them by disputing the inaccurate negative stereotypes such as super predator or welfare queen. She needs to have the courage to openly address these beliefs even as she does so in a way that does not dismiss people. I think she is capable of walking this line, but it requires being self-aware enough to realize not only that she made a mistake, but all the reasons why they were problematic.… The bully pulpit is a place form which such implicit biases can be changed, but it requires conscious intent. That is one thing I want to see her exhibit in this campaign; that she gets why especially mouthing the “super predator” myth was so destructive.
I am not opposed to political moderation, but like all political leanings it has its benefits and its dangers. To the extent that she acts reflexively to court votes in a way that reinforces implicit bias or makes policy choices to prove she is tough, I think she needs push-back. I will support her if she is the Democratic Party nominee, but I will also continue to speak out if I think she is catering to wrong ideas or bad policy.
It’s not just the conservatives:
Another male Dem piling on with another theory/observation regarding Hillary hatred and Trumpism….
Just wanted to let you know (if others haven’t yet) that the Hillary hate is not limited to angry white male “conservatives”, at least not in my Facebook feed. As a lifelong, opinionated lefty Democrat, my Facebook feed is full of similarly inclined friends, most of whom passionately support Bernie Sanders.
Unfortunately your typical angry, misogynist, middle-aged uncle has nothing on many of my Facebook friends when it comes to passing around (mostly) baseless lies and character assassination aimed at Hillary Clinton. Email server and Benghazi memes, mostly culled from right-wing sources are passed around with wild abandon. Breathless Clinton conspiracy theories-- again sourced from the right-- are posted up and shared without a moment taken to ask where they are coming from.
The “Hillary super-delegates are going to steal the election from Bernie” meme is a case in point…. The persistence of the rumor among my Bernie supporter friends against all evidence (for example a quick look at how HRC superdelegates responded to Obama taking the lead back in 2008) would be familiar to anyone on the receiving end of angry Uncle Bob’s Benghazi emails.
In my admittedly anecdotal Facebook experience the Hillary hate coming from progressives isn’t limited to "Bernie Bros”. Some of the worst I’ve seen comes from my female friends, women of all ages (with impeccable feminist credentials I might add). I have two female friends who actually insist they can’t vote for Clinton because her “voice is annoying and she shouts”.
My point is that thirty years of right wing Hillary hate, aided by the Fox News echo chamber and abetted by a “mainstream” media that prefers to discuss the political effectiveness of the attacks rather than the veracity of the claims has been deeply internalized by the left, to the point that even a significant number of feminists can’t vote for a women who “shouts”. Game, set, and match to the consistency and persistence of Republican message discipline.
Of course not all of my circle has bought into Republican nihilism, but that many of my “progressive” friends cite anti-Clinton right wing memes to justify sitting out the election, even at the risk of a Trump presidency or a Supreme Court packed with Ted Cruz appointees is galling. It’s as if the 2000 election, along with the resulting wars of choice and disastrous Supreme Court picks are forgotten. They would prefer “blowing up the system” by electing Donald Trump, the better to rebuild from the ashes rather than see another Clinton president. In that they seem to share more with angry Uncle Bob than anyone should care to admit.
Let’s not forget morality. Finally for the day, and returning us to Trump:
One unobserved point about Trump is how far systematic morality has been taken out of the public sphere, and it seems to me out of private calculations as well.
Trump himself exhibits the moral sense of a three year old, minus any apparent empathy for any other human being. Traditional GOP cant has relied on a Trad Vals script which, for all its hypocrisy on the one hand and its truncated Christianity on the other (one of Kasich's problems is that, as a conservative Anglican, he acknowledges a responsibility to the poor), it at least implies the relevance of moral argument. The Dem/liberal side is explicitly grounded in moral imperative.
So here comes Trump, and both his behavior now and his history shows that he suffers under no moral compass whatsoever. "Good" means getting what he wants, and "bad" means anything that gets in the way, and I don't think he lies so much as he simply pays no attention to the truth at all, the poster turkey for "Looking Out for #1" (it's telling that he and Ringer were both in commercial real estate).
People have erected this idol of Hillary Clinton as this liar, which I think partly stems from sheer slander, partly from her not all that appealing manner, but in large part because she's the only one other than Trump who has enough of a history of actually trying to run anything to allow people to pick over her mistakes. I'd rather not have her for her policies, but the hatred of her from the right is more visceral than grounded, out of proportion to her failings.
But this seems to not matter at all about Trump. And I strongly suspect, from the sorts of things I'm reading from or hearing about his supporters, that they to some great degree share his amorality. That's not to say that they lack any moral sense, but that it is no larger than they are, which is to say, they do not seem to be capable of being swayed by any sort of moral argument, accepting no moral authority outside themselves.
This is a huge problem in many ways, but in politics it makes it impossible to work to any greater good, and it makes it plausible to vote for a man who cannot run his own businesses, never mind our government. The consequences of such a vote simply do not matter, and the fact that he lies as he breathes does not matter.
I am on the road without time to do any set-up (or, sigh, to finish several pending posts on aspects of modern America that are more encouraging than the presidential race). So, unadorned, further reader thoughts on the rise of Trump and “she’s just as bad!” bitterness against Hillary Clinton:
The culmination of a long pattern. A reader in the northeast argues that in this as in many other matters, the GOP’s tone in 2016 is the logical result of trends underway for many decades:
A number of readers have already commented on the “Hillary hatred” phenomenon, but I think a few further points can be added on this topic:
First, it is not only the Trump supporters who invoke a caricature of Hillary as a “congenital liar” and/or “tool of Wall Street.” This is very widespread among Republicans generally. It is perhaps most commonly used, as seen with the “vote for Bozo” reader, to justify continuing to vote Republican virtually regardless of the candidate.
Second, the “congenital liar” label has been applied to Hillary for years. Trump’s emergence as the GOP frontrunner now puts Republicans like “vote for Bozo” in an especially awkward position. The rationale that they can’t vote for Hillary because of her dishonesty is blown to pieces by Trump’s epic dishonesty. To quote Republican columnist David Brooks, Trump is “perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy.” If you can’t vote for Hillary because of her dishonesty, then you can’t possibly vote for Trump.
Third, Hillary Clinton is hardly the only Democrat to whom this line of thinking is applied by Republicans. Indeed, virtually every nationally successful or effective figure in the DP in the past 25 years has been described by the GOP and GOP-friendly media as having character flaws that fundamentally disqualify them from holding office.
Obama was harshly attacked in this way starting in 2008, once it became apparent that he could win the election, and this has steadily escalated to the point where the GOP establishment now paints him as an essentially illegitimate president—refusing to consider his nominees or take up his budget proposal. Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle have all faced smears and concerted vilification. Liberals often seem surprised by this.
How can anyone describe Obama, a moderate, center-left Democrat, in such extreme terms? This misses the point that these leaders are vilified and dismissed as illegitimate precisely because they are moderate. Portraying them as extreme won’t stick, and thus a different strategy is needed to raise their negatives.
This is Newt Gingrich’s gift to America. If Sanders is the Democratic candidate (which looks unlikely at this point), my prediction is that he will be spared the character/ personal barrage directed at Hillary and others. It won’t be needed, because he can be effectively attacked as a Socialist.
It’s even simpler than that. From another reader on the East Coast:
This experience has always stuck with me, though it may be colored/distorted by the tricks of memory.
The Albany, NY, press corps annually conducts a Legislative Correspondents Association show in which the press corps pillories the governor and legislatures. It’s like the White House Correspondents dinner in ways good (these clever people can be really funny, and it was a target rich environment) and bad (you can count the ways).
In either 1992 or 1993 (it was after Hillary Clinton’s “Stand By Your Man” 1992 comments on 60 Minutes), [a female] Associated Press reporter came out as Hillary Clinton. She wore a black leather bomber jacket (playing off some sort of stereotype) to perform a parody version of “Stand By Your Man.”
I don’t remember the lyrics, but I do remember the audience reaction when it was apparent that it was “Hillary” up there. It was very frightening:
The audience was largely male (lobbyists and the legislators they bought the expensive “charity” tickets for) and the reaction reminded me of being in a fraternity house when a porn movie started (sorry to say that I have experienced that kind of thing in the late ‘70s). The best way I can describe it was that there was a palpable “whoosh” of mysogyny. Hooting and catcalls, all directed at “Hillary.”
Hillary had obviously been on the scene a little while, but she was hardly well known. I remembered wondering what she could have done to earn this visceral, aggressive contempt. It continues now, and I’m not sure there is anything complicated about it.
What do some white men fear more than a black president? From another reader, who like the previous two is male:
When I was growing up in Eastern North Carolina there was always a certain level of Clinton hatred among whites. But definitely Hillary got more of it than Bill. All Jesse Helms had to do was mention the name “Hillary” to get white North Carolinians riled up at “uppity feminist elitist” liberalism.
Something that was very clarifying to me was when a female friend posed this question: Do male politicians who have shifted positions get the same level of hatred for it as Hillary? The answer is obviously no. Another clarifying thing was when I examined how Hillary’s favorable ratings fell as soon as she started running for President. Look at polls and it’s incredible to note her approval as Secretary of State and how that dropped, not from Benghazi, but as soon as she started running for President.
If we ignore the role that sexism plays in Hillary hatred then we are ignoring the truth that’s in front of our nose. Note that I’m not saying that it’s sexist to criticize Hillary. I’m not saying that she shouldn’t be held accountable for her record. But we males especially need to take an honest look at how our fear of a female President shapes our reactions to Hillary. If you’re a white male, do you react as strongly against Clinton’s positions when they are held by a male politician? Biden has a similar centrist track record. Would he attract the same level of disdain for it as Hillary if he were running for President?
There are countless policy areas with which to disagree with Hillary Clinton. But it’s no accident that email servers and Benghazi seem to provoke more anger than Iraq and the Patriot Act. White males have always feared a black president. We fear a female one even more.
She doesn’t check the “good woman” boxes. From another male reader who grew up in the South:
I grew up in Arkansas during Bill Clinton’s political career there. Much of the Hillary hatred I hear from conservatives today is no different from what I heard then, when she came in for particularly spiteful criticism above and beyond her husband.
Boiled down, she’s a woman who checks none of their “Good Woman” boxes. There are many, many things that have been layered on top of that over the decades of her public career, but that one still lies at the base and is the main source of the particularly vitriolic hatred, I think. Absent that, they would just hate her the same way they hate Harry Reid or Jimmy Carter.
I'll add that, like your defense contractor engineer, I have a hard time seeing myself voting in this year’s election. My own objection to Hillary comes from my civil liberties and open government views. Her notion of her privacy while holding public office could hardly be more at odds with what I consider the duties of any public official. (President Obama was a massive disappointment on this score, as well.) Her foreign policy views are also much too conservative for me.
My voting forecast wouldn’t change if Bernie Sanders happened to win the nomination, by the way. Not for any specific policy position or another, but because I simply think he'd be a terribly ineffective president who'd damage the liberal brand for a generation.
If I lived in a swing state, I’d probably hold my nose and go to the polls for either of them. But my state is going GOP by a wide, wide margin.
What about Benghazi? Huh???? To balance things out, and as a sample of the anti-HRC mail that comes in, I offer this, from a reader who (unlike the previous three) doesn’t use his real name.
I was at a loss as to your article entitled "Why so much Hillary Hate?" did not address: 1. Her speaking fees from Wall Street banks resulting in a conflict of interest; 2. Her use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, for which there is a active FBI investigation concerning violations of national secrecy laws; 3. The appearance of the conflicts of interest between her actions as Secretary of State and donations made to the Clinton Foundation by UBS, Dow Chemical and the Russian Uranium deal.
When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied "Because that’s where the money is". When Hillary Clinton was asked why she paid $675,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs, her response was "Because that is what they offered". To me it sounds like she was channeling Willie Sutton, a kindred spirit.
In contrast to Donald Trump’s theme, I’ve been saying all along that America Is Already Great Again™. But his campaign is certainly making the country even greater in one specific way, which is the volume of interesting and impassioned correspondence that is coming in about the man, the era, and the implications.
I’ll keep doling these out in regular increments, combining them thematically where possible. Today’s assortment starts with a question about his most likely general-election opponent:
OK, Trump’s an outlier, but why is Hillary Clinton considered equally beyond the pale? From a reader in California who was in grade school when Hillary Clinton became First Lady:
I have noticed that the Trump supporters you quote on your blog have a common disdain for Clinton. It's almost like their support for the TV actor is linked to her at least in part.
In fact, every person I have personally spoken to who supports Sanders or one of the Republicans mentions her almost immediately when asked why they prefer their candidate of choice.
Nearly all my life (I was 10 years old in 1992) I have heard of the horrors and evils of this woman. Yet, since I was a child and now into my mid-30s I haven't understood exactly why she is so hated. Do you have insight? What about this woman is so distasteful beyond basic partisanship? She seems like the only “serious” candidate to me and if she truly is that awful I would really like to know why!
From a reader on the East Coast who actually remembers the Clinton era:
In reference to one of your letter writers you posted earlier today: Is Hillary a congenital liar and in the pocket of Wall Street? These ideas are debatable. She certainly is widely disliked, or has “high negatives,” as they say.
I’d be interested in your views on this topic. I, for one, am not convinced she is a liar, congenital or otherwise. (Does your letter write who called her that disbelieve her denials about Vince Foster’s death?) She has been under attack for a quarter century and could arguably be seen as having the defensive posture of the perennially persecuted.
What do I believe about Hillary? Responding to all the various criticisms would take too much time, and I don’t need to do that anyway. But, I do believe she genuinely wants to make the world work better for people, and I believe she would work toward that goal as President. What led me to that conclusion? I read this article and learned about her improving the college library’s book return policy. Seemingly trivial? But, she thought it mattered. I think helping people is “in her DNA.” (I assume the story is true as is the story in the same article on her speech at her commencement.)
And, I admit to having concerns about her judgement. I get the long-term goal (helping people) but am often befuddled by her short-term strategy.
Similarly from Vasav Swaminathan, a University of Michigan graduate and Air Force veteran who is now in graduate school at Georgia Tech. Like the first reader, he was very young during the previous Clinton era:
I’m surprised by the number of your readers who consider voting for Hilary as unpalatable as voting for Trump.
To me, she’s a politician, who has made tough calls and done unsavory things that come from a lifetime in government. But she’s no worse than almost anyone else who’s been in the government for 20 years or more, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders since he was, until now, very much a niche candidate in a unique state.
When people talk about Benghazi but don't seem to see Iraq in the same light, I get confused. The biggest difference between the two situations is 2,495 American souls. And what other scandals does she have on her record? Whitewater amounted to very little. Her husband cheated on her. So … what?
For the record, I'’l be voting democratic in the general election.
Because life is short, I’m not even going to try to get into the question: why so many intense feelings about Hillary Clinton? (And I don’t plan to run any further back-and-forth about the meaning of the 1990s, or Whitewater, or Vince Foster, or Ken Starr, or — God save us — Benghazi.) Hearing the question is like being asked, by a non-American: Why is the GOP so upset about Obama? Where do we start? I’m just offering these notes as samples of a view contrary to some I’ve already quoted.
In the same email, Swaminathan went on to make a point several others have mentioned. It’s based on a previous pro-Trump note from a man who identified himself as “A Machinist,” and then criticism of the machinist’s views from a electronic engineer in the defense industry.
Unrelatedly, I also found the EE [engineer] who commented to be full of himself.
First of all, skilled machinists are pretty dang important to the modern economy, even in the world of numerically controlled machines. Those guys can read machine language as well as you read Mandarin. The difference between him and the machinist isn't necessarily brainpower—among other things, including choices they've made during their younger years, it’s opportunity.
I also recently completed my masters in engineering, and I agree it wasn’t an easy thing to do. But more than being fortunate to have brainpower, I think I was fortunate to have had a strong support structure from my family (and the GI Bill) to help me complete that degree. A lot of the troops I had the privilege to lead also lacked opportunities and were fortunate that the military gave them opportunities for a middle-class lifestyle.
To say they “lacked brainpower” is NOT accurate. But since that is the way the elites of this country have been talking about poorer people in this country, it’s less of a surprise you see Bernie and Trump doing well. Trump blends this message with white nationalism, which is what’s so scary. Bernie addresses this problem with an activist government, which parallels the Progressive Era’s answer to the 19th century Gilded Age.
Trump may be a modern Il Duce, Bernie may be a modern day William Jennings Bryan, and hopefully Hilary can be a modern Teddy Roosevelt.
Similarly on the machinist question, from a reader in the west. She writes:
Of all the Trump defenders, the one who disturbed me the most was the person who disparaged the machinist. Machinists are highly skilled workers without whom a sophisticated and diverse economy can’t exist. [JF: Yes, this is part of what we’ve been chronicling around the country.]
We need them just as much if not more than we need people with
graduate degrees in computer and electrical engineering. Maybe he
should explain why a skilled worker shouldn’t expect to earn a wage
that allows for a middle class life?
But it sounds like he has just gotten his graduate degree; maybe in a few years he will learn that he is just as expendable as the machinist he sneers at. He reminds me most of the old NPR short called “Ask Dr. Science.” The end of every segment where Dr. Science mangles some issue has him claiming “I have a master’s degree, pause, in science!”
Readers weigh in about this next stage in American democracy. Previous entries are all collected on the page you’re reading now.
Trump did save me a lot of money! From a male reader who now lives in New Jersey, who ends up arguing that I should “vote for Bozo,” ie Trump:
First, to establish some anti-Trump bona fides:
I moved to the Lower East Side (and then the Upper West Side) from Florida in 1979. I very quickly learned to loath Trump as a blight upon the city.
And why is Trump different from Hitler? Hitler wrote his own book; Trump hasn't read his. (In fairness, the same could be said of Hillary.)
I must add, though, that Trump did save me a lot of money. I figured, if a billionaire like Trump can't afford a decent hairpiece, why should I waste my money? So I'm bald. Or, as my wife puts it, gleefully bald.
Finally, we can take it as a given that Trump will be a terrible, horrible disaster of Biblical proportions [allusion to Ghostbusters] as President…
So, why not worry?
Two reasons. First, the US does not have the systemic weaknesses of Italy, Germany, and Russia after WWI. [JF note: Yes, agree, this is under-appreciated point. The Weimar Germany of the 1920s was a disaster economically and in its first fledgling days as a democracy, soon to perish democratically and in other ways under Hitler.]
Second, Obama -- even with the whole-hearted, full-throated, rapturously unskeptical support of most of the media, nearly all of academia, and two years of legislative majorities -- was unable, in the end, completely to "fundamentally transform" America. And Trump (Trump!?) is supposed to be able to do so with all three of those groups against him (and the courts besides)? Not happening.
That's why, if I'm faced with a choice between, on the one hand, a candidate calling for a "people's revolution" [JF: I’m guessing this is Bernie Sanders] or one who is both a congenital liar and the willing tool of anyone who has a million or so bucks to spare [guessing this is HRC] (either of whom would have nearly the same level of support from my betters as Obama) and, on the other, a reincarnation of Bozo sans the red nose, I'm voting for Bozo.
Deny him the limelight, and he’ll wither. From a reader in Nebraska:
An earlier reader correctly stated that "[c]onservatives leaders need to stop taking these [economically left-behind] groups for granted. Liberals should see them as a group that deserves attention and outreach. This needs to happen after Trump—otherwise we will repeat history in 4 or 8 years."
I believe this to be a correct assessment in many ways; the GOP has never, in my voting lifetime (20+ years) had what I'd call "a domestic policy program" that came close to anything the Dems have had. The Democratic domestic program over the years has been scattershot, perhaps, but at the base of it: "helping people out whatever holes they're in."...
I have talked with a friend who is the one rabid Trump supporter I know. I find his certainty in Trump's eventual nomination and election baffling, but not surprising….
I pointed out to him that the last time 'outsiders' won their party nominations over establishment candidates, the electoral results were disastrous: Goldwater in '64, and McGovern in '72. This didn't matter to him, and I was lectured on the Democratic Party's 150 years of using minorities to simply get votes, etc….
It is this "suspension of logic borne of intuition" that I find so frustrating...and troubling.
As far as Trump, if he becomes the nominee, being an unknown/ untested candidate against a presumptive Hillary Clinton candidacy, I think HRC would do herself a favor by simply speaking generally about the GOP and its candidate, and not even deigning to "debate" him where he could bully and bluff his way into "winning" any such event. Deny Trump the limelight, and he'd wither. Let surrogates call him out by name and sling the mud.
It’s not narcissism. It’s something much worse. From a reader in the Midwest, in response to a previous note offering an arm’s-length diagnosis of Trump as manifesting narcissistic personality disorder:
Interesting take on the Donald - yes he is narcissistic, but it's actually much worse than that. I believe he's also Character Disordered. When people are character disordered their basic belief system is that they are never wrong, or to blame for anything that they might do that goes wrong. It's always everybody else's fault.
The big problem with this psychosis is that it's very difficult to treat. If you are always right, then what is there to change?
I wrote back to this reader, saying that I did not know about “Character Disorder” and wondered if it was a real thing. He said, yes indeed, and pointed to discussions like this (emphasis added):
Most disturbed characters don’t hear that little voice in their heads that urge most of us to do right or admonish most of us when we’re contemplating doing wrong. They don’t “push” themselves to take on responsibilities and don’t “arrest” themselves when they want something they shouldn’t have. Any qualms of conscience they might experience can be eliminated with great ease. In the most severe disturbances of character (i.e. the psychopath or sociopath), conscience is not simply weak, underdeveloped, or flawed, but can be absent altogether.
It’s really hard to fathom and accept that there are people in this world who simply don’t have the same degree capacity most of us have to be inwardly troubled when they contemplate doing things that are potentially very harmful to others or even themselves.
“I will not be voting in the general.” From a reader who works in the defense industry, on the shape of this year’s race. He is responding especially to this post, in which I quoted some obscene and snarling pro-Trump messages:
One of the downsides of the Internet is where one can be fairly anonymous, people often give themselves permission to behave poorly. The comment board of The Atlantic, for example, is quite insalubrious.
Another example is Buzz Mitchell's message to you. [“James, you are a pathetic little dickhead” etc.] One of the most valuable lessons I've learned in my short life is just because you're thinking something, or you want to do something, that doesn't mean you should say it or do it.
It's also clear that Buzz and the machinist [also quoted in that post] have immersed themselves in the bubble that Conservatism Inc's. lucrative media complex has created. One can exist in this bubble and be blissfully unaware of what is truly going on in the country or in the world.
The machinist, in particular, uses buzzwords like "Jonathon Gruber", but how much do you want to bet the machinist is not aware that the same "Jonathon Gruber" was instrumental in implementing healthcare reform in the home state of the last GOP presidential candidate for that GOP governor? Or that the ACA was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation back in the late 80's?...
Circling back to my first point -- civility or lack thereof -- one of the things we as a nation appear to be losing is a sense of self- responsibility. Rod Dreher over at The American Conservative had a great blog earlier today that touched on that topic.
Speaking for myself, I completed a masters program in electrical and computer engineering three years ago. Statistically speaking at this point in my life, I have academic and professional credentials that most Americans would kill for.
But it didn't happen by accident, James. Graduate school in the hard sciences is brutal, and it has a way of culling out the weak. But I hung in there, worked hard, and it's paid off. It doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is POTUS one year from now because given my career trajectory, I'm going to earn a good amount of money.
What I'm sure the machinist in particular is in denial about is a President Trump will ameliorate his present situation of only earning $45,000 a year. It won't, for wage stagnation amongst the working class and income inequality has been an issue long before Barack Obama became president….
It's worth saying that it is not Obama's or the hated establishment's fault that the machinist is earning only $45,000 a year. I realize not everyone can be an electrical engineer, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a businessman. I'm incredibly fortunate to have the brainpower I have in order to do what I do. But as I've said, James, I've had to work hard and pay a price to get to where I am.
Without knowing the machinist, I can tell you that a lot of people don't want to pay the necessary price to get to where they want to be because, frankly, it's too hard. At some point, people have to take ownership of their own futures. Government can help towards that end (I took out federal loans for my undergraduate EE degree), and it should. But it is folly to blame any incumbent president for one's own life circumstances.
NB: For the record, I will likely not be voting in the general. Trump is an unelectable authoritarian, and Hillary Clinton (assuming she puts Bernie Sanders down) is untrustworthy for a myriad of reasons aside from her not inconsiderable baggage. You may refer to me as an engineer who works on DoD programs for a large defense contractor.
We may be past the point where it matters to wonder why Donald Trump does the things he does. Instead we can just note that he does them. As I’ve argued before, his virtuosity in being able to switch almost instantly from bombast to talk-show charm is an important part of his success.
A reader makes what may by now be an obvious point but is still worth reckoning with. He was responding to the post in which I noted Trump’s combination of masterful TV performance and near-total ignorance of the actual job and challenges of being president. Emphasis added:
I'm a clinical psychology doctoral candidate about a year away from graduation, and I think that there's actually a psychological explanation for Trump's ignorance.
Normally I wouldn't diagnose someone without spending time with them in a 1-on-1 interview, or without speaking to people who are close to them and who are reliable reporters, or without some kind of objective data collected from empirically supported psychological tests, but I think it's safe to say that Donald Trump is really and truly a narcissist, in the personality disorder sense.
I think that Donald Trump's ignorance is a manifestation of his narcissism. Trump hasn't bothered to educate himself about outside issues because, to him, everything he says is automatically true. Why learn about something that you believe you've already mastered?
Let’s stop to note Trump’s relevant quote today on Morning Joe. Who does Trump rely on for foreign-policy guidance, he was asked? “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” Back to the reader.
Imagine going through life with the conceptual framework that you simply cannot be wrong. Facts would cease to matter, and education would largely be irrelevant, because you're the one who determines what is and isn't true. In fact, people who claim to have expertise would become the enemy because they would provide information that would exist outside of yourself. If everything you say is the ultimate, universal truth, than anything that exists outside of yourself must be deception.
I think that Trump earnestly believes every single thing that comes out of his mouth, and that the reason his beliefs seem to change is because his reality is fluid.
When Trump claimed that he had refuted David Duke he really believed it, because in his world he is infallible. When, in the reality the rest of us share, he clearly did not refuse David Duke's endorsement and instead said that he doesn't even know who David Duke was, that was also true, because he believed it to be true.
For Donald Trump there's no need to convince him that, as in George Orwell's novel 1984, 2+2=5, because for him 2+2 equals whatever he currently believes it equals. He seems earnest because he really is an earnest guy, and he refuses to work on his ignorance because he deeply, genuinely believes that he's right, about everything, all of the time. I think that he feels attacked because he lacks the capacity to understand that the rest of us don't subscribe to his own version of reality.
Further on the Trump phenomenon, for good and bad.
The left-behinds. A reader argues that Trump has given a voice to people who thought they were unheard and invisible:
I am currently in California looking after my 99 year old mother and consequently watching more television than I’ve seen in a long time. It’s been interesting to see just how blindsided the talking class has been (and to a large degree still is) by the rise of Trump.
Pundits scratch their heads, “Didn’t see that comin’” but I’m sure that you, in your travels across America, are aware that there are many, many people who have been left behind by the “recovery.” A stroll through the WalMart in the city where I live (Santa Fe) tells me that.
Both parties have let our working classes down by sidestepping an inconvenient truth that is self-evident to them: this economy doesn’t need them. They are expendable. I’m not sure I know enough about how other countries feel about work but I know in this country when a man (and I’m concentrating on men here because I am one and because I think this is primarily a male problem) is out of work there is a profound loss of identity. For some time now we’ve had an economy where the role of the breadwinner has been shared by men and women and I think, in the talking classes, men have adapted to this paradigm. I don’t think this is the case for working class men.
This fall I read Joe Bageant’s book, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America’s Class War, which opened my eyes (and heart) to people I would not normally have given much thought to: working class men and women from Winchester, Virginia, Joe’s hometown. To put it bluntly, these are not my people but Joe paints a sympathetic portrait of men and women who have paid the real price of our current economy, the ones who get knocked to the ground when corporate decisions are made far, far from their doorsteps. These are people who are seen as consumers or digits on a spreadsheet. And when they are no longer valued as “assets” they disappear entirely from our radar.
And clearly, until Trump galvanized them, they have been (and to a large degree remain) invisible to the talking classes and, perhaps, more crucially, to themselves. The parade of shiny, happy people my mother sees on her TV in commercials and the shows themselves do not reflect the circumstances of their lives and when they do it is often in reality tv shows where their antics are remarkable only because they are so odd to the talking classes. They are fodder for entertainment.
From this perspective any appeals to reason, ideology, true Christian values or whatever, will fall on deaf ears. Trump has made them visible to the talking classes and to themselves. They will not be denied.
I’d like to say one more thing that seems critical to me. Capitalism takes care of the talking classes in a way most of us take for granted: it confers dignity to their labors. There might have been a time when a man who worked with his hands could also count on that as well but not in my memory.
The phrase that keeps recurring to me is this one: “a place at the table.” This is what working class men and women have not had in some time.
He doesn’t really want to win. From an American reader in Asia:
I've been enjoying Trump's show from abroad after living in Japan the last few years... For what it's worth here's my guess how this plays out:
Trump knows he won't beat Clinton absent divine intervention (a real scandal, a perfect storm of an independent run), so he'll wait until the last moment and then instruct his delegates to support someone else... someone who checks the boxes of (1) palatable to establishment GOP, (2) credible general election candidate, (3) shares Trump's calls-it-likes-he-sees-it-ness (phony as it may be), and most importantly (4) promises Trump the moon in return.
Trump's brand depends on his reputation of not being a loser (phony as it may be). He's shown no interest in actually running a general election campaign -- no interest in the issues, no fundraising, no campaign. If he wants to maximize the return on his investment, this is the safest course.
Note that in this universe, Christie's endorsement actually makes sense.
No, really, winning would be bad for him. From an American reader in New York:
If you want to compare Trump to an athlete, he's not Muhammad Ali so much as the guy at the YMCA who swears he can make a shot from half court. It's a lot more fun to see him talk about it than to watch him try to do it.
I think it's possible that Trump could win a general election. (I switched parties so I could vote for Kasich in the NY primary next month for just that reason.) But it's worth asking if Trump could ever be reelected in 2020. [JF note: thinking about 2016 is enough for me.]
It seems like Trump's appeal lies in the ambiguity of what his policies would be. It's easier to run on vague promises than an actual track record. After Iowa, most of the punditry I read was about how losing would sink Trump. But it seems like winning in 2016 would be the end...
This is less amusing than it seems. From a reader in California, who makes a surprisingly precise comparison between The Donald and Il Duce:
This is in response to the reader from Europe who asserts that Trump is not a fascist and that the US would be better off as a direct democracy.
As a resident of California, I've seen some of the problems (that of course you already know) about direct democracy. On the more immediately impending issue: of course, we can't tell yet whether Trump is a full-fledged fascist. But do we want to put him in power and find out? The Italian historian Roberto Vivarelli's description of Mussolini's rise could have been written today about Trump [JF: emphasis added]:
“From the very beginning, for example, the relation between words and deeds among Mussolini and his followers was very peculiar, and words were used not to state any firm conviction, nor to outline a definite political program but, rather, to arouse emotions that would generate support for a changeable line of action.
“Language, that is, was used by fascists not as an instrument of persuasion but as a means of deception. As a result, the fascist movement from its inception presented itself as a purely political phenomenon-that is to say, as a movement created for action which acquired national relevance through a skillfully executed plan ending with the seizure of power. But when in October 1922 Mussolini became Italy's prime minister, his contemporaries had no idea of what was in store for them. There was no such thing as a fascist blueprint for government, simply because fascism was not an intellectual movement with anything comparable to a doctrine; and, in fact, among the fascist rank and file one finds at that time the most bizarre and varied collection of people.”
This is from Vivarelli's article "Interpretations of the Origins of Fascism," in the Journal of Modern History 63 (March 1991), 30.
The surprisingly short life of new electronic devices
Updated on March 22 at 9:06 p.m. ET.
Two years ago, Desmond Hughes heard so many of his favorite podcasters extolling AirPods, Apple’s tiny, futuristic $170 wireless headphones, that he decided they were worth the splurge. He quickly became a convert.
Hughes is still listening to podcasters talk about their AirPods, but now they’re complaining. The battery can no longer hold a charge, they say, rendering them functionally useless. Apple bloggers agree: “AirPods are starting to show their age for early adopters,” Zac Hall, an editor at 9to5Mac, wrote in a post in January, detailing how he frequently hears a low-battery warning in his AirPods now. Earlier this month, Apple Insider tested a pair of AirPods purchased in 2016 against a pair from 2018, and found that the older pair died after two hours and 16 minutes. “That’s less than half the stated battery life for a new pair,” the writer William Gallagher concluded.
In hindsight, there were plenty of indications over the past decade that American politics were headed toward the partisan sniping and low-stakes media obsessions that crowd the news cycle today. Take Arugulagate. In 2007, Barack Obama was in Iowa, speaking as a presidential hopeful to a group of farmers who were worried about the stagnation of their crop prices while America’s grocery bills continued to rise.
In his speech, Obama referred to the inflated cost of arugula at Whole Foods, which was a small gaffe: Iowa didn’t have a Whole Foods, and the leafy vegetable wasn’t then familiar enough to be name-checked in a broad point about American grocery costs. But political media turned arugula into its own news cycle, with conservatives charging Obama with elitism. Around the same time, lattes were also being slandered. It was a big moment for food as proof of one’s true ability to govern.
Our birth-control methods failed, and we can’t afford a second child financially or career-wise.
My wife and I recently discovered she's about six weeks pregnant. This is devastating news for both of us. We have a 17-month-old daughter and we planned on having only one child. The birth control we had been using failed. I tried to have a vasectomy nine months ago and my wife objected at the doctor's office without citing reasons. She said she would get an IUD instead, but she was unable to get the IUD, because doctors had to remove a fibroid first. She learned about the pregnancy at the doctor's office during a consult on removing the fibroid.
Since hearing the news, I have been honest with her about my feelings. I reminded her that we simply cannot afford a second child and we can kiss our joint career aspirations goodbye if we have another baby. She agrees with me. More important, I said our marriage will be over in the sense that we will just be co-parents rather than lovers because I will resent her, and the baby will always be a reminder of my career sacrifice and our indebtedness.
The scandal is how much corruption it exposed—and how much turns out to have been perfectly legal.
So much about the rise of Donald Trump defied reason. But in the spring of 2016, he displayed one habit that I found beyond perplexing: He couldn’t stop praising Vladimir Putin. What made his obsequiousness so galling was that it often came in response to questions that warranted moral disdain: What about the assassination of journalists critical of the Russian government? Are you bothered by the invasion of Crimea? Whereas most of Trump’s policy positions shifted over the course of the campaign, his apologetics for Putin were a rare source of constancy.
As Trump raced to the Republican nomination, I began to search for ulterior explanations for Trump’s adoration of Putin—and the fact that his campaign served as a magnet for so many advisers and consultants with ties to Russian interests. On July 4, 2016, I published a piece in Slate pointing to Putin’s pattern of intervening on behalf of candidates hostile to the Western alliance, and arguing that we were seeing the same sort of interference unfolding in the United States. And I spent much of the next three years trying to understand the nature of that interference.
Newsmakers, pundits, and hustlers banked their future on the investigation taking down the president. The jig is up.
In a letter to Congress on Sunday, Attorney General William Barr declared that while Robert Mueller’s report found evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and did not exonerate President Donald Trump, it also did “not conclude that the president committed a crime.” And so the special counsel’s months-long investigation into Trump’s dealings with Russia ended with an inconclusive conclusion: No smoking gun would result in Trump’s hasty removal from office.
Not just Democratic lawmakers had been banking on a final blow to the Trump administration. Pundits, commentators, and opportunistic entrepreneurs had all held up Mueller as a hero for their cause—and, in the process, constructed a cottage industry of Mueller-pegged media content and accessories.
A former Jehovah's Witness is using stolen documents to expose allegations that the religion has kept hidden for decades.
Updated at 3:34 p.m. ET on March 25, 2019.
In March 1997, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the nonprofit organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses, sent a letter to each of its 10,883 U.S. congregations, and to many more congregations worldwide. The organization was concerned about the legal risk posed by possible child molesters within its ranks. The letter laid out instructions on how to deal with a known predator: Write a detailed report answering 12 questions—Was this a onetime occurrence, or did the accused have a history of child molestation? How is the accused viewed within the community? Does anyone else know about the abuse?—and mail it to Watchtower’s headquarters in a special blue envelope. Keep a copy of the report in your congregation’s confidential file, the instructions continued, and do not share it with anyone.
Half of the electorate is likely to reject Attorney General William Barr’s decision on obstruction.
The justice system cannot please everyone, but it at least aims to provide some sort of closure. That’s why one of the least satisfying outcomes of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the election, as summarized by Attorney General William Barr, is its approach to the question of whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.
Though this message was delivered in a very different way, it is reminiscent not of Watergate or any of the other past presidential standards that have become common analogues, but instead of former FBI Director James Comey’s 2016 recommendation that Hillary Clinton not be charged with a crime in connection with her use of a personal email server while secretary of state. In both cases, Justice Department officials found evidence both for and against a crime. In both cases, they determined that prosecuting a case wasn’t tenable. And in both cases, the outcome is likely to enrage nearly half of the American electorate, splitting the country rather than providing a reconciliation.
The attorney general’s letter will do little to bridge the partisan divide.
We cannot yet see the report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted to Attorney General William Barr on Friday. But we can see its shadow in the four-page letter Barr sent to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on Sunday afternoon. The letter will be touted as vindication by President Donald Trump and his supporters, but will do little to bridge the partisan divide over Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation, and will inspire more vociferous demands to release the entire report.
Barr’s letter thoroughly quelled some of the fondest hopes of the anti-Trump “resistance.” The letter revealed that Mueller closed his investigation without recommending more criminal charges, and that no further indictments are under seal, as some had speculated. That’s a great relief for Trump and his family and associates, but it’s not the end of their federal criminal jeopardy. Barr also pointed out that Mueller “referred several matters to other offices for further action.” For instance, the special counsel sent the investigation of Michael Cohen’s hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which secured Cohen’s guilty plea for federal campaign-finance violations. That office is still actively investigating the matter—we know this because it carefully redacted the details of the investigation when it released the Cohen search warrants last week. But the special counsel’s investigation was the most prominent legal threat to the president and his family, and its closure without further indictments is a major victory for him.
Between 1965 and 1969, more than a million American soldiers served in combat in Vietnam. One can argue that they should never have been sent there, but no one would argue that, once committed to battle, they should have been given inferior equipment. Yet that is what happened. During those years, in which more than 40,000 American soldiers were killed by hostile fire and more than 250,000 wounded, American troops in Vietnam were equipped with a rifle that their superiors knew would fail when put to the test.
The rifle was known as the M-16; it was a replacement for the M-14, a heavier weapon, which was the previous standard. The M-16, was a brilliant technical success in its early models, but was perverted by bureaucratic pressures into a weapon that betrayed its users in Vietnam. By the middle of 1967, when the M-16 had been in combat for about a year and a half, a sufficient number of soldiers had written to their parents about their unreliable equipment and a sufficient number of parents had sent those letters to their congressmen to attract the attention of the House Armed Services Committee, which formed an investigating subcommittee. The subcommittee, headed by Representative Ichord, a Democrat from Missouri, conducted a lengthy inquiry into the origins of the M-16 problem. Much of the credit for the hearings belongs to the committee’s counsel, Earl J. Morgan. The hearing record, nearly 600 pages long, is a forgotten document, which received modest press attention at the time and calls up only dim recollections now. Yet it is a pure portrayal of the banality of evil.
The unusual situation facing Robert Mueller does not justify a repeal of well-established traditions of confidentiality.
As the nation awaits the Mueller report, a return to first principles is in order. One relevant first principle was dramatically illustrated in the breach during the waning weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. Then–FBI Director James Comey announced at a press conference that no criminal charges would be brought against Hillary Clinton. Comey didn’t stop there, however. In that press conference, which will continue to live in infamy, Comey sharply criticized the former secretary of state for her ill-considered conduct in housing a server in her private residence, only to receive official and—not infrequently—classified information.
The nation should have risen, as one, in righteous indignation in the aftermath of the Comey press conference. In a single misadventure, Comey both seized power that was not his—the power to seek an indictment, a prerogative that was entrusted to the attorney general—and then violated one of the fundamental principles of public prosecution: Thou shalt not drag a subject or target of the investigation through the mud via public criticism. Prosecutors either seek an indictment, or remain quiet.