Notes

First Drafts, Conversations, Stories in Progress

Trump Nation
Show Description +

An ongoing reader discussion led by James Fallows regarding Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency. (For a related series, see “Trump Time Capsule,” as well as “Will Trump Voters and Clinton Voters Ever Relate?”) To sound off in a substantive way, especially if you disagree with us, please send a note: hello@theatlantic.com.

Show 48 Newer Notes

A 'Trump-Pence' Car in Deepest Hollywood

The Club™ in action, via Winner International.

A reader in Southern California whom I’ve corresponded with over the years sent several photos with accompanying description. I’m not using the pictures, for the contradictory reasons that they are blurry looking but also clear enough that they might be identifiable. But I’ve seen them and can say that they support the case the reader makes.

Why is Trump popular? The reader says that he is the living human version of that familiar car safety device, The Club™ from Winner International.

Or, that if Richard Hofstadter were rewriting The Paranoid Style in American Politics, he would need a multi-volume special edition to cover 2016. Over to the reader:

I work on a studio lot in Los Angeles. Hollywood is lousy with liberals, so you can imagine my surprise when I pulled in next to a car with a Trump 2016 sticker. [The reader sent a photo.]

I immediately liked the owner of the Trump car, in the same way that I would like the owner of a Clinton car in the Bible belt. Going against the grain like that takes independent thinking, guts.

But what really got my attention was The Club. [A photo of this, too, across the steering wheel.]

I don't know if you remember The Club, but it was popular in the ’80s and ’90s. It’s a long steel bar that you stick in the steering wheel. Truly the only way to prevent car theft.

I haven’t seen a car with The Club in a long time, but I saw one today. It was protecting the Trump car. And this, for me, perfectly sums up the Donald Trump supporter.  

To begin with, consider the driver’s morning. To get onto the lot, they had to pass through a security checkpoint. Once on the lot, they were in an officer-patrolled environment. In fact, every inch of this place is monitored with security cameras.

In other words, this is a safe place.

A new archive makes the thoughts of the nominee available and searchable. For instance here, the 63 times he has called someone "lightweight." Trump Twitter Archive

Talk about a time capsule! This is quite an amazing piece of work. Courtesy of a Georgetown grad and former Peace Corps volunteer who now works as a programmer, we now have a searchable archive of 16,000+ tweets from @realDonaldTrump since 2009.

The main page, with selected highlights, is here. The search utility is here. For instance, if you’d like to see all 63 tweets in which Trump calls someone (usually Little Marco) “lightweight,” you can just click here.

You can donate to support the site here. (I have no involvement with it or its creator in any way, except as a citizen grateful for further documentation of our times.)

48 days and a few hours to go. The Republican leadership, minus one former president, is still saying: He’s fine!

Back in 2009, when I was living in China, I was digging into the birther issue. This was before Donald Trump made it his own. But it reflects part of the genius of Trump’s multi-year birther crusade. Let’s think about the fundamental idiocy of the line that the Republican nominee was pushing for many years. Here’s the 2009 post:

I don’t know whether the birthers are petering out on their own. If they’re still around, here’s an additional challenge for them that springs from the glory days of Mad magazine.

A friend has recalled a classic Mad riff from its “Strangely Believe It!” series, produced by comedian Ernie Kovacs in the late Fifties as a knock-off of Ripley’s Believe It or Not. It concerned—well, see for yourself, in this detail of a scan of the original page, courtesy of Scott Gosar at TheMadStore.

MadMag.jpg

Because I’ve been on the road talking about my new story on the upcoming presidential debates—read it here! and then subscribe!—I am again falling behind the accelerating reality of the Trump Time Capsule era. Will add several updates at the next opportunity.

Meanwhile: Yesterday afternoon I spent a long time talking with Brian Beutler, of The New Republic, for his Primary Concerns podcast series. We talked about what the “false equivalence” brouhaha reveals and conceals, what the Trump movement shows and doesn’t about the country, what the political press can and cannot do, and other topics with a yin-and-yang aspect to be explored. We ended on the high note of what we’d each learned about the world from growing up, a generation apart, in the same small inland-California town. I enjoyed it and think you’ll find it interesting. It’s here.

Also, the Atlantic’s video team has made a great short video that accompanies my debate article, and for which I do the voice-over. You can see it here and below.

This guy, "D. J. Quacker," shown outside Trump Tower in New York yesterday, wants Donald Trump to release his taxes. So does a former commissioner of the IRS. Lucas Jackson / Reuters

With 61-plus days until the election, Donald Trump remains the only major-party nominee for the presidency or vice presidency of the post-Watergate era who has refused to release his tax returns. Not coincidentally, of all nominees through that period, Trump also has the most complicated and least-publicly-understood personal and corporate finances.

Why is he drawing the line here? Readers offer their hypotheses:

I started my career with a year as an IRS agent before jumping across the desk to work for a “Big Eight” firm (which I think is now the Big Four?).

It’s been a long time since I’ve been doing taxes, but my gut tells me Trump hasn’t filed in the first place.

I remember being involved with clients who had endured bankruptcies, the implosion of complex energy partnerships, and/or the collapse of the real-estate market.

Their partnership K1s would be delayed for so long that we’d sometimes have to file with numbers we ... well... sorta made up. Once the K1s arrived we could always go back and amend, but by providing some form of a reasonable estimate we could show good faith.

However, there were some clients that hated the tax code, and the entire Byzantine process (not to mention our fees). So some of them opted out until something came along and forced their hand to file (e.g., an audit).

A thought for the morning from one of the two people who might become president. This is one of the Tweets that appears to come from Trump himself. How do we know? It’s from his Android phone, rather than the staff’s iPhone or iPad (and they haven’t bothered to all buy Androids yet). Also, Trump always misspells judgment this way. Also, who else would write or say something like this? Something this crass—and also, something this foolish. After all, of the many ways in which Donald Trump might want to invite comparison with Hillary Clinton, brainpower and “judgement” are not his areas of most obvious advantage.

Seventy days (plus a few hours) until the election, with something like the “real” campaign beginning, these thoughts arrive from readers on how the nation, the party, the press, and others reckon with the reality of a candidate Trump.

1. Asking about torture. A reader suggests a line of questioning:

Why don’t journalists ask Trump surrogates to address Trump’s repeated view that he would advocate torture and killing of families of known terrorists? This seems as abhorrent as any of his positions. Maybe I have missed it but I have never, for example, heard a reporter ask Pence whether he supports this extreme position at odds with basic tenets of civilized behavior, Geneva Convention, rule of law,  the reason why we fought WWII, etc.

***

2. Why the Berlusconi comparison is so useful. An American reader who has been in Europe writes:

I was in Spain this past week, where the collective question about the U.S. political campaign can only be translated as “WTF?” While I am not familiar with members of the entire political spectrum in Spain, my acquaintances are generally shocked at the recklessness and the intellectual vapidity of one of our leading political candidates.

Spaniards tend to respect the U.S. Even those who view the U.S. as a malign force think of it as an incredibly capable country filled with smart (if misguided) people. Mr. Trump’s success is not something they can easily reconcile.

I write that as a preamble to my response to the Black Trump Supporter who chastised you for your coverage of Trump. [JF note: It was from a man named Jamie Douglas, here.] In criticizing your coverage, he points out problems afflicting America and African Americans, in particular. He makes some valid points about the relative (a term to be stressed) success of Black Caribbean and Nigerian immigrants compared to African Americans with long family histories in this country. Smarter people than I will engage on this point. I will only point out that his observations are not reasons to support Donald Trump.  They are, at best, reasons to punish Democrats and to “stick it” to those Blacks with whom you’ve disagreed over the years. [JF: I assume this is the impersonal “you,” like on in French or “with whom one has disagreed...” in English. Rather than meant for me!]

***

Last night, in Time Capsule #88, I noted the deafening silence of Republican officialdom, after Hillary Clinton delivered her calmly devastating indictment of Donald Trump’s racist themes.

After this frontal attack on their own party’s chosen nominee, the rest of the GOP leadership said ... nothing. The cable-news Trump advocates were out in force, but senators? Governors? Previous candidates? Wise men and women of the party? Crickets.

A reader who is not a Trump supporter says there’s a logic to the plan:

I think you might be missing the GOP strategy here regarding Sec. Clinton’s bigotry speech, and the fact that no Republican came forward to defend Donald Trump. Republicans know that she spoke the truth—the indefensible truth about Donald Trump—and they want to squelch any discussion about it. That’s what they are doing.

Because they don’t want this speech on the airwaves, debated on panels, over several news cycles, with more and more of the dirty laundry getting debated in the mainstream news cycles, leading the Nightly News with dramatic music. Screaming headlines. Any any—ANY—statement by a Republican will trigger that discussion that no GOPer wants.

The mainstream news guys are sitting there at their email boxes, waiting, waiting, for statements, so they can write a piece on it. Benjy Sarlin mentioned it on Twitter, which you probably saw. [JF: I have now] And a couple of other journos, agreed.

But without some outraged statement from Ryan, Cruz, anybody, the mainstream journos have nothing to write about, there is no news cycle, no panels, no screaming headlines, no multi-news cycle. Just a Wow! Clinton gave a rough speech!” End of story. And that’s the strategy. Bury this story. And it’s working.

That’s how the GOP handles this kind of story. And it works just fine, every time. The mainstream journos can't find a both-sides hook, and they are nervous about this alt-right stuff anyway, so the story dies. Journos fear the brutality of GOP pushback. So it goes. Every. Time.

Contrast that with the non-story about the Clinton Foundation. Every GOPer was sending out a truckload of statements to keep that story going. Chuck Todd has stated in the past that he—they—have no choice but to write about whatever the GOP is upset about because they all put their shoulder to the wheel. And the GOP always has something for journos to write about. Controversy! And no fear of brutality from the Democrats. That’s how that goes.

That’s why we hate the media. Still. Even more than ever.

The candidate in Virginia today Carlo Allegri / Reuters

Last night, in chapter #81 of the Trump Time Capsule series, I argued that Donald Trump’s recent “outreach” to black voters amounted to talking about African Americans as a problem group, rather than to them as part of the “us” of America.

Reader Jamie Douglas, who is black, writes in to disagree. I am leaving in some of the complimentary things he says about non-Trump articles I’ve written, because they provide context for what he doesn’t like in my recent political coverage. After his message I’ll summarize why I see things differently.

Over to Jamie Douglas:

I’ve read many of the articles you published about the new China.  I lived in Sichuan and Guizhou for several years (from about 2000-2005) and your articles, I felt, focused on things that Americans really needed to understand about where China was and is headed.  Other journalists spent way too much time in Beijing writing about the machinations of the Communist party, and in doing so, they missed the real story.

I’m not writing today about anything related to China. Rather, what concerns me is your coverage of Donald Trump. I’m a black American from New York. My parents immigrated to Brooklyn from Grenada in the 1960s. And I wholeheartedly support the Trump campaign.

You’ve made it clear that you think Trump would be a disaster and that he has to be stopped. Trump inspires strong feelings, and from what I knew of you, I would have been shocked had you not been strongly opposed to his campaign.

I’m surprised, though, by how willing you are to do the easy thing and focus on Trump’s many gaffes, his off-putting braggadocio, and his very nontraditional tactics. There is a bigger story here and I’m still waiting for a journalist of your stature to address it. I believe that someone capable of writing something as honest and introspective as, “What Did You Do In the Class War, Daddy?”  is very much able to produce a similar piece honestly analyzing Trump’s appeal and the visceral dislike that you and your colleagues in the media feel for him.  

***

Jim Hamblin argued this week that Donald Trump is “a climax of American masculinity.” A reader has a different take:

I’d strongly argue that Trump’s bullying, hyper-aggressive persona isn’t “masculinity,” but rather what immature males confuse with masculinity. I grew up surrounded by “men’s men”—first on the farm, then working construction and commercial fishing. I’ve met plenty of men who were confident and comfortable in themselves, and who managed to be masculine without being ignorant, belligerent assholes. Hell, the nicest guys I know do things like fix heavy machinery in Russian oil fields, freeze their assess off on fishing boats in the Bering Sea, and risk their necks in the logging industry in Canada. They’re badass guys who would never dream of bullying someone for any reason, much less their gender or religion or perceived weakness.

So, I think that what we see in Trump’s supporters is what happens when males grow up in the absence of these sorts of men for role models.

    Then-president Felipe Calderon of Mexico with President Obama at the White House in 2012. A Mexico diplomat argues that his country's experience in Calderon's era has lessons for the United States now. Larry Downing / Reuters

    In the Trump Time Capsule series, I have noted once or twice, or a million times, that “responsible” Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are embarrassing themselves and their party by continuing to stand with Donald Trump as potential Commander-in-Chief.

    Jorge Guajardo, a Mexican citizen who on his Twitter feed has been mercilessly mocking Trump for his anti-Mexican remarks and other excesses (and whose Twitter photo shows him with Khizr and Ghazala Khan in Philadelphia), now argues that indirectly Ryan and McConnell might still serve a higher national good.

    Guajardo is well connected in Mexican politics; he was involved in the campaign of Mexico’s former president, Felipe Calderon, and then served under Calderon as Mexico’s ambassador to China. (That is where my wife Deb and I became friends with him and his wife Paola; they have also served as guest writers in this space.)

    Here is Guajardo’s case for what Ryan and McConnell have done—and could and should do:

    When I was in China, I witnessed a lot of things and thought I had seen them before in Mexico. The thought has come back, but this time in the U.S.

    A little background: In 2006, President Calderon won the presidency with a vote difference of 0.6 percent. Since before the election day, his leading competitor, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known in Mexico as AMLO) had been questioning the validity of the electoral process (even though it was run by an independent agency, approved with unanimous support by all parties, and every voting place had representatives from all major parties).

    It was no surprise that AMLO did not concede after his defeat, calling on his followers to engage in civil disobedience, famously saying, “to hell with the institutions.” It was him or bust. His followers did a weeks-long sit-in in Reforma (Mexico City’s major thoroughfare), and his party’s legislators tried to overtake Congress so that Calderon could not be sworn (through complicated maneuvering, Calderon managed to sneak into Congress and be sworn-in as AMLO’s legislators booed).

    Fast forward ten years and go to the U.S. Trump is starting to make a case that the election will be rigged. He has NEVER acted big—not in victory, not in hard times, not in tragic times—so I doubt defeat will show us a new side of him. Most likely he’ll claim the election was rigged, fail to concede, and so on.

    And here’s how Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can play a bigger role if they keep standing by him.

    Another unprecedented president? The Battle of New Orleans, Edward Percy Moran / Library of Congress

    In the 70-plus installments collected here, I’ve been recording (some of) the ways Donald Trump differs from people who have previously come so close to the presidency.

    Here are two readers who disagree with the premise of the series, from a long-term-historical perspective and a more recent one. I’ll quote them each and then explain where I agree, and don’t.

    First, from an American overseas:

    I am a U.S. citizen currently living in Seoul. While I do not support Trump, and although I will vote Democrat come this election, I do not believe Trump is as unprecedented as some of the other readers seem to believe. In this case, I am writing to you with specific reference to the President Obama’s remarks against Trump’s temperament, and Trump’s talk of a rigged game. Both have clear analogues to the 1824 electoral cycle.

    Andrew Jackson, as I am sure you know, horrified the Democratic-Republican elite. He paved the way for Common Man candidates by slowly expanding suffrage and embracing the Jeffersonian ideal of a Yeoman America. Thomas Jefferson, a former president at the time, had this to say about the prospect of a Jacksonian presidency:

    I feel much alarm at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws and constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. His passions are terrible. When I was President of the Senate, he was Senator, and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings, and as often choke with rage.

    Truly, Jefferson was not the active president, but I think that a quibbling detail. He was the author of the constitution and the founder of the ruling party. I support our president, but Obama’s prestige now could not contend with Jefferson’s then. But notice the same critique: Like Trump, Jackson was seen as unfit for his temperament, not his ideas. His passions were so intense as to disqualify him from office.

    And of course, like Trump, Jackson saw power in conspiratorial terms. His Bank Veto still reads like an Industrial Workers of the World manifesto. And, as I’m sure you know, in 1824 Jackson saw his electoral loss as a conspiracy, a Corrupt Bargain where Clay and Adams stole the White House from him. Jackson, by fundamentally undermining the electoral process and the legitimacy of the new president, was tapping into the zeitgeist and leading it towards victory four years later. Trump is doing the same.

    Jackson is not my favorite president, and I suspect a President Trump would wreck synonymous havoc on minorities and the American economy. But America survived Jackson, who was an obvious danger to our democracy. We will survive Trump, although he may change us—or kill us all in nuclear fire.

    On this comparison, I’m happy to stipulate that so much is so dramatically different between the America of the 1820s and the America of 2016 as to bring any “unprecedented” judgment into question. (For instance: back then there was no electricity or real-time communication; there still was slavery; only certain white men could vote; etc.) So I’ll more frequently say “unprecedented in modern times.”

    But while recognizing that historians talk about the revolution of Jackson’s arrival, and that temperamentally Jackson may be closer to Trump than any other real-world president, the differences between them as plausible national leaders are still immense.

    By the time he was elected president in 1828, Jackson had: been elected to the House once; been elected to the Senate twice; served as military governor of Florida; and won more popular and electoral votes for the presidency than any other candidate in 1824, only to lose to John Quincy Adams when the House of Representatives decided the outcome. All this is apart from his experience as battlefield commander.

    If Donald Trump had had any elective-office experience whatsoever (for instance: Green Party candidate Jill Stein was elected a Town Meeting Seat in Lexington, Mass.), or had ever held any public or military office of any kind, it would be easier to suggest some likeness.

    After the jump, the more contemporary dissent from a reader:

    ***

    Previous items today concerned Donald Trump’s reaction to an airplane crash that was noted briefly on Fox News, while he was in the middle of a major newspaper interview. Trump said he’d “never liked that plane, structurally,” but the question is which plane he considered flawed. Had he just seen news about the crash-landing of a Boeing 777 in Dubai? Or about a Navy F-18 in Nevada? Or a twin-engine Piper Seneca in Arizona?

    I asked Philip Rucker, who was conducting the great WaPo interview with Trump, whether he noticed or remembered what Trump had seen. His reply:

    I wish I had a definitive answer for you, but unfortunately I do not.

    Unlike Donald Trump, I was seated with my back to the TV, so I wasn't paying much attention to what was on the screen. The TV was tuned to Fox News. I recall it was a small plane crash and not the Emirates 777. It might have been the Sedona crash….  I do not believe it was a military plane, but I cannot say for certain.

    The crash was only briefly on the newscast. Much of the time during our interview Fox was covering Trump.

    So odds favor the Sedona crash of the Piper Seneca—in circumstances (night flight, mountainous terrain, older pilot flying on his own) that likely have nothing whatsoever to do with aircraft-structural concerns.

    ***

    Meaning-of-Trump point: the way his mind works. Immediately after an Egyptair flight disappeared over the Mediterranean in June, Trump declared,

    What just happened? A plane got blown out of the sky. And if anybody thinks it wasn’t blown out of the sky, you’re 100% wrong, folks, OK? You’re 100% wrong.

    No one knows for sure now, and no one had any idea then, what had happened to that Egyptair plane. Yet Trump moved instantly to “you’re 100% wrong!” mode. Again this week, in his instant reaction to whatever crash he saw, Trump responded instantly (and probably incorrectly). And he was in a position to make this misjudgment because he was so interested in seeing news that was mainly about himself.

    I know, there’s hardly any news value in pointing this out any more, but: the man doesn’t know very much, isn’t aware of what he doesn’t know, thinks poorly, yet is super-decisive. Ryan, McConnell, Rubio, Cotton, et al: Heck of a job!