Following installment #119 in the Trump Time Capsule series, which contrasted Donald Trump’s “they’re freeloaders!” complaint about NATO allies with his own “that makes me smart!” comment about not paying taxes himself, readers weigh in.
1) If this makes Trump “smart,” most people are forced to be dumb. Friend-of-the-site and Congressional veteran Mike Lofgren highlights an aspect I neglected to mention:
An important point that wasn’t emphasized is that among the vast majority of Trump’s supporters, not paying taxes isn’t even an option, regardless of how much they might want to chisel the IRS.
FICA taxes are automatically deducted, and the employer automatically files a W2. The option of setting up tax-exempt foundations, shell companies, and engaging in transfer pricing simply does not exist for these folks.
An ordinary person would resent someone who can get away with various tax dodges; maybe Trump’s supporters have such a masochistic identification with him that it doesn’t matter.
2. Only the little people pay. From a reader in California:
With his recent “That Makes Me Smart” comment at the debate, I am reminded of Leona Helmsley, famous for saying, as I’m sure you remember, “Only the little people pay taxes.” I haven’t seen anyone make the connection recently, perhaps I have missed it, but they have much in common.
I know she went to jail for a while and while refreshing my memory with Wikipedia and Google, I see that she had the same attitude towards not paying contractors and taxes as Trump does. Seems they were both friends and rivals as well. Billionaires with no empathy for the “little people” they mock and ruin. Too bad Trump is unlikely to meet the same fate Helmsley did, but it certainly would be fitting.
3. Come back, Mitt; all is forgiven. A reader points out differences between the two most recent GOP nominees:
People have pointed out similarities between how Romney explained his low tax rate at his debate (“I pay all the taxes owed. And not a penny more. I don’t think we want someone running for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”) and Trump (“That [paying zero tax] makes me smart!”).
But there’s a difference: A possible explanation for Trump's refusal to release his returns is that Trump annually cheats on his taxes and puts the burden on the IRS to investigate and sue him to get paid. It’s just one facet of his selfish personality where he derives a minor benefit from majorly inconveniencing others. Romney revealed he’d been audited at least once and was found to be in compliance... has anyone asked Trump what the results were from his past audits?
4. If he’s not paying taxes, why does he care about “takers”? A reader in Florida examines another logical paradox:
In context of the last 8 years (at least) of Republican claims about “makers and takers” and their whole Ayn Rand sensibility, doesn’t the expressed sentiment by their party leader—“I’m smart not to pay taxes”—reveal the glaring inconsistency—fraud, even—at the heart of the Republican ethos? If he’s already not paying taxes in this country—something that was also suspected of Mitt Romney (Mr. 47%)—how exactly are the so-called “takers” holding him back?
Does Trump’s statement not conflict with Trump’s tax plan, which would aim tax breaks toward the wealthy, but not so much for the “left behind middle class” he purports to represent? Isn’t he exactly like Leona Helmsley (“taxes are for the little people”)?
And yet he’s not perceived as a completely selfish elitist.
5) And while we’re talking about taxes. A reader suggests another angle:
After the debate Monday, I was thinking about Trump’s comments about forcing companies to pay a huge tax when importing from their international factories. Forget how he can actually implement that as president.
Would it apply to his own foreign investments? How is a Trump hotel in Rio or golf course in Scotland different from a Ford plant in Mexico or a TI plant in the Philippines?
I don't recall seeing this idea being explored anywhere, but after googling today, I did found this article that covers my thoughts pretty well. It’s over a year old ...
39 days and a few hours until the election; early voting starting in some places now; tax returns (of course!) not forthcoming; GOP “leadership” still standing firm behind their guy.
A video posted by Chill Wildlife™ 🖖🏼 (@chillwildlife) on
I’m helping my colleague Jim Fallows with some housecleaning regarding the massive amount of reader email piling up over Donald Trump. One notes for the record:
I appreciate your Trump Time Capsule serial, but I think you all have missed one. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am unaware of a presidential candidate ever releasing his (or her)testosterone level before? Since Trump has released so little other health information, the message it sends is … I can’t find the words for it.
Speaking of the Time Capsule, this reader has an apt literary reference:
It seems this passage from Lewis Carroll “fits” your Time Capsule: Alice laughed/said, “One can’t believe impossible things.” The Queen replied, “I daresay you haven’t much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” (Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 5)
This scene from Tim Burton’s version of the Carroll classic has a certain resonance with last night’s debate:
In 1992, my most favorite car ever was stolen from the streets of New York City while protected by The Club. When I reported the theft to police and insurance, I learned that The Club is not a deterrent; it is actually an aid to car thieves. I didn’t grasp the details at the time, but as I was reading your post about the Trump-Pence car, I remembered how my confidence in The Club was disappointed and found this paragraph on Freakonomics:
A pro thief would carry a short piece of a hacksaw blade to cut through the plastic steering wheel in a couple seconds. They were then able to release The Club and use it to apply a huge amount of torque to the steering wheel and break the lock on the steering column (which most cars were already equipped with). The pro thieves actually sought out cars with The Club on them because they didn’t want to carry a long pry bar that was too hard to conceal.
So there’s a pretty rich irony in this whole metaphor: a voter who is frightened by threats that aren’t real, or aren’t statistically significant, trusts a protector who will not provide any meaningful protection, who will, in addition, make the voter more vulnerable. Trump has cheated employees, lenders, stockholders, charities, customers, and now he’s setting himself up to cheat his voters and supporters too.
Thanks for sharing the link! This is awesome! In just two minutes, I was able to answer a question that long bedeviled me: on Planet Trump, what are all the failing media operations? The answer:
The New York Times (the champion by far), CNN, New York Daily News, Glenn Beck/The Blaze, National Review, Manchester Union Leader, Politico, Daily Beast, Des Moines Register, Weekly Standard, The View, Vanity Fair, Bill Maher, Huffington Post, DC Examiner, New York Magazine
Meanwhile the Washington Post only gets a one-time appellation of “phony.” Clearly, the Fahrenthold stories aren’t stinging too much.
Fallows covered the latest from Fahrenthold yesterday. Another reader takes a big step back to try to understand this moment in political history:
Maybe some part of the electorate has always been paranoid. But like your reader [who saw the Trump-Pence bumper sticker] points out, this year seems a watershed. I can see some reasons:
1. LGBT marriage equality: Came SO fast, I don’t think people have processed it yet. As they are struggling to cope with this decidedly liberal agenda, the wedding cake mafia is not helping either. No one likes being held hostage to ideas in their own home/city/country.
2. Globalization: Everyone else is doing SO much better (esp China?!). Our jobs have gone abroad, our towns devastated by meth epidemic, and all the Dems want to talk about is refugees and queers. (Totally ignores the real issue: looming automation that is going to suck up more jobs—self-driving cars?)
3. Black Lives Matter: The mostly white support base for Trump does not like being faced with facts such as police brutality. As long as it’s mostly black kids who get mowed down, it confirms their worldview that black kids are mostly thugs. BLM movement does not help its own cause when it moves from protest to looting and arson, feeding the thug narrative.
4. PC police: “microaggression,” “triggers,” “safe space,” “cultural appropriation.” I am an avowed liberal and I find this hard to stomach. Are we sending kids to college to prepare them for the world as it is, or not? While there is no cause to engage in deliberately insulting and provocative speech (n****r, f****t, and whatnot), chilling campus speech with Dolores Umbridge-like rules and committees is beyond the pale.
5. Spike in death rates of middle-aged whites: Was in the news recently and it was a head scratcher that no one (even NPR) wanted to talk about it other than as an “interesting aside.”
6. Immigration: Again, even as a liberal, I don’t agree with mindless immigration. America used to have enough resources and opportunities to welcome everyone’s tired, poor, huddled masses, but we are not that economy anymore. Perhaps UK’s Theresa May’s approach sounds brutal, but it is commonsense: get the immigrants who will help grow your economy. Here, that conversation is long due—not the Clinton-esque I love all immigrants or Trump’s “I hate all Muslims,” but a nuanced conversation debating the pros and cons and coming up with a comprehensive approach (not going to happen in our lifetimes).
It’s been a long rant already, so I will stop by saying that all this is probably exacerbated by not having trustworthy, reliable, well-informed and principled media or news sources anymore. The New York Times (for me) lost all credibility post W’s wars. Newspapers have been atrophying and dying off. We are left with a babble of self-important idiots, tweeting their opinions. The loudest and crassest always wins, evidenced by Trump. You guys are good but mostly whistling in the wind.
Another reader also mentions the New York Times—specifically its long-time columnist Maureen Dowd:
FWIW, I listened to a Dowd interview on the Diane Rehm Show. It was transcendently awful. Among several howlers:
Dowd made many definitive pronouncements on the characters of both Clintons, Trump, and Obama. Yet when a caller objected that her snarky, mean-girl tone, relativizing of the candidates, and general levity were inappropriate to a situation in which the norms of human decency were at stake, MoDo condescendingly suggested the caller didn’t know the difference between a journalist and a columnist, and refused to engage further on the matter.
Another caller mentioned parallels with It Can’t Happen Here. Sinclair Lewis was one of the better-known American novelists of the past century, and the book is widely known. And in the last year, it would be virtually impossible to be closely engaged with the presidential campaign without running across references to the book (Google “Trump Sinclair Lewis” and you get 485,000 hits). MoDo had never heard of it.
Here’s one more reader trying to make sense of the Trump phenomenon:
I’ve considered yearning for power, the appeal of self-dealing at the highest level, and all sorts of motivations. And I’ve especially been stumped by Trump’s appeal to the masses. Really worked on that one and couldn’t come up with much. He pings the right tones for racists, homophobes, the afraid, and so on, but those things don’t really explain the broader appeal. The Trump Revealed book helped fill in some gaps but didn’t explain today’s situation. I’m a fairly smart guy with a 2+ hour daily commute, so I have a lot of time to think about this. But I think I’ve figured it out ...
It is simply the striving to be the most famous person on earth. Nothing more or less. The common theme across everything I’ve read or observed about him says that Donald Trump wants to be the most famous person in the world, and that person of course is the president of the United States. How many Americans can name the Prime Minister of New Zealand? How many New Zealanders do you think know who Barack Obama is?
As a pathological liar, nothing he says can logically made sensible. I don’t think he will even give a sideways glance to the “wall” or mass deportations or any of his promised acts if he’s elected. He’ll continue to lie and take credit for doing them anyway, or take credit for not doing them. Doesn't matter. He’ll move towards the next outrageous thing that will add to his fame. Or infamy. That’s his arc—it always has been.
If he were to get elected, I predict impeachment or resignation within a year—as long as the circumstances bring even more publicity.
And it explains his appeal. He’s Kim Kardashian, Kanye, Branjolina, Justin Bieber, and Madonna to the nth power. I’ve always felt a sense of of fandom in his flock. The same sense that makes the Red Sox the best team to Bostonians or causes people in DC to root for the Redskins in spite of Dan Snyder and RG III. They’re our team. We picked them and by God, we’re sticking with them no matter what they do.
And when our team loses, it’s the bad calls, the other team cheating, the lightweights who didn’t pull their weight. Sound familiar? The elections are rigged unless he wins. The courts are skewed. It will always be the other guy’s fault.
I’m gonna take a break from trying to think about this for a while.
James Fallows is a hero for plowing through and creating some sense out of what is happening in our politics. I tried watching some of the comments [Monday] night and by the experts on received wisdom at Morning Joe for a few minutes. And I have long been trying to make sense out of what talking heads say about this being a change election. I think what they mean is “novelty.” That is the only way I can grasp the apparent appeal of the con artist whose name I will not use. (He has enough attention.) The reader who wrote that he wants to be the most famous person in the world is on to something.
What about the many of us who want continued reasonable stability and who can’t believe the Obama years are about to end? Why doesn’t the talking head culture talk about us?
Here’s another reader, Renie:
Here’s what I still wonder after all this time (and after watching the terrible Frontline episode “The Choice” and reading the latest article on Ivanka Trump as Donald’s surrogate.) Why are women still enabling and excusing bad male behavior when the male in question is their husband or their father? If I were Ivanka Trump, I would think I would want to hide out in Outer Mongolia and never appear in public with her creep of a father or her equally creepy full brothers. He is so obviously ignorant and crooked and a liar. Why would she defend and ally herself with him?
With Hillary, I just can’t imagine the level of humiliation she went through and why she accepted it. And I am close to her age so I’ve never bought the excuse that women of my generation were brought up to accept any level of bad male behavior from their husbands. Don’t get me wrong; I do believe that she is by far the better candidate and is an intelligent and strong woman and that there is no question of who should be president. I also don’t believe that she and Bill made a political deal. That would be rational and I don’t think this kind of behavior is entirely rational.
And on a lighter but still serious note, imagine if “The Choice” episode had spent as much time on the Donald’s appearance and hair as it spent on hers. Just imagine the descriptions and the questions. When did he start dyeing his hair? Did he have hair implants? Was he wearing a rug at the time that Obama humiliated him? What about those ever ballooning suits? He even admits to a weight that puts him awfully close to obese. If he’s subtracting a typical amount, he’s actually well into the obese range. Why does a man of his appearance castigate women? So many questions that no one ever asks him.
Update from one more reader, promise:
Regarding Trump Time Capsule #119, his contractor quote (“Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”) seems to me like another example of the fundamental tension between the many claims that Trump has made about his business acumen and its applicability to the office of the President: his business record just doesn’t support a lot of these claims.
From the $14 million starter loan to the number of times he’s filed for bankruptcy (“us[ing] certain laws that were there”), these things show someone whose skill is having a private safety net that allows him to get back on top after each miserable failure rather than someone whose decisions lead to success. His contractor defense has a similar problem: if people are supposed to believe that he won’t be a train-wreck president because of his ability to hire “the best people,” why are there so many examples of his hiring people whose work he found lacking?
If he had stiffed a contractor or two, fine. Sometimes people do a bad job, and if you have the ability to express your dissatisfaction through not paying them, that’s within your rights. But by all appearances, he’s either (a) really bad at selecting contractors (i.e. has a horrible eye for the best people) or (b) using the threat of lawsuits to get out of paying money that he legitimately owes to the contractors that he hired, since “the best people” wouldn’t do work that he would find wanting.
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.
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.
Even if a car thief did decide to break onto the lot and steal a car, there’d be better cars to steal than this one. Suffice it to say, it was middle-of-the-road SUV. A great car, but then again, this is a major Hollywood studio. The car thief would have their pick of Teslas, Porsches, Range Rovers and Bentleys.
In short, all signs point to one conclusion: no one is stealing the Trump supporter’s car.
And yet the Trump supporter was afraid.
That’s because they know better. The world has never been more dangerous, we have never been more vulnerable. We need a wall. We need a stronger military. We need The Club.
And The Club is Donald Trump.
Look, I might be in the wrong. Maybe the car really is in danger. But I’ve spent four years on this lot without a single incident (besides my bumper getting side-swiped by a tour guide’s golf cart). So I’m going to say the car is safe.
Therefore the driver’s fear is not justified. In other words, they're paranoid.
A paranoid electorate is nothing new. I’m sure you’re familiar with Richard Hofstadter’s, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. [Yes.] I’m no political theorist, but he more or less says that we, as citizens, can fall prey to “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial thinking.”
Hofstadter is careful to point out that the paranoid style is not reserved for the right. But this year it is.
Donald Trump is stoking paranoia, perhaps even creating paranoia. And it’s a smart move. Because he is the protector, the strong arm, The Club.
One last point: I’m not saying that ALL Donald Trump supporters are paranoid. I very much dislike that kind of blanket statement (including Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment). In fact, I wouldn’t even venture to guess what percentage of Trump supporters are paranoid. But I do think some are, and I think The Club has merit as a metaphor.
And so going forward I will think of Donald Trump supporters as those who see their country just like they see their car: in imminent danger, in need of The Club.
I DO realize there are limits to the metaphor. The United States is not Paramount Studios. Crime does happen in our country. So do terrorists attacks and tons of other bad stuff. There are legitimate reasons to be afraid.
But paranoia is different, and I think this is a nice example of it.
I agree. A snapshot of part of the American electorate, 2016.
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.
The punch line—hardee har!—is that news of the baby girl’s birth had to be telegrammed to her mother, who had missed the plane on which the surprise birth occurred.
What’s the connection to the birthers? If Barack Obama had actually been born in Kenya, then his mother would have to have been in Kenya too! I don’t think anyone has dreamed of suggesting that his mother was other than the one he has always claimed, Stanley Ann Dunham. Presumably somewhere in the passport records of the United States or Kenya is information about whether his mother (a) left the United States, or (b) entered Kenya in 1961 when her son was born. If she didn’t leave the United States, including the fully-fledged state of Hawaii, in the summer of 1961, then by definition her child has to have been a natural-born U.S. citizen.
I recognize that if this were a matter of—how do we say?—“reality” or “facts,” it would have been settled long ago, as it has been for everyone except the birther stalwarts. But this is an interesting additional angle worth considering; plus, it’s great to see these detailed old Mad drawings.
So the point is, for Obama to have been born in Kenya, his mother would have had to get there. And there has never been any evidence of any sort that she left Hawaii in the summer of 1961. Good to have a major-party nominee admit it after many years of suggesting the reverse.
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.
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).
All this to say Trump reminds me of some of those clients who literally kept a small army of accountants and lawyers busy year round. One of my friends called clients like that “Pig-Pen,” after the Peanuts character that always left a trail of dust behind him.
Guys like Trump are “Masters of the Universe,” and maneuver in and out of bankruptcies, and partnerships, and *deals* in such a fluid manner that dealing with the IRS is like just another banker sitting around the table.
“As [a] former … IRS agent in large dollar cases I can tell you why Trump is being audited every year and what he doesn’t want you to know.
“It’s this: high net worth individuals with multiple corporations have tax departments that deliberately take positions they know they can't sustain and just wait for the IRS to go out and hopefully find only a fraction of the money they really owe. It’s a low interest loan from the government to which they don't have to submit an application … just submit a return they know is wrong and wait for the IRS to come along and correct it … thus the annual audits. IRS does not audit unless they are going to get big bucks.
“Simple answer, Trump is a taxcheat. That’s what he doesn’t want you to know.”
After quoting the former IRS agent, the reader adds:
As you mentioned, as long as Trump's tax return remains private, the public is free to speculate as to why he would not release them. You mention over and over again that he hasn’t released them but, unless I’ve missed some of your writing, haven’t delved too much into what it really means.
Right, because I have no idea. All we can logically infer is that something in those returns would be worse and more embarrassing for Trump than his refusal to release them has been.
Another reader speculates on what the source of embarrassment might be:
You have mentioned many times about Trump’s failure to release a medical report. This omission is likely very analogous to his refusal to release his tax returns.
The likelihood is that the reason for both is not either criminality (in the case of his taxes) or infirmity (in the case of his medical records). The likelihood is that both are due to embarrassing private details.
It has often been speculated that his tax returns might show embarrassing details such as much lower than advertised wealth, sleazy financial connections to Russia, or chiseling on charitable donations.
My assumption is that his health-care records reveal a stigmatized health condition. As he was by all accounts, including his own, quite the swordsman in his day (the ’70s and ’80s) there is a very high likelihood he has at some point contracted herpes or HPV. That is the only plausible reason why he would be unwilling to release his medical records. Both conditions are extraordinarily common and total irrelevant to his fitness to be president. But either would be mortifying for him (as well as just about anyone else) to have the condition revealed publicly.
This may be idle speculation but frankly pales in comparison to Trump and his allies’ repulsive Swiftboating of Hillary’s health.
Fred Goldberg’s essay reminds me of an important point about Trump: Throughout this campaign, he has consistently placed his personal and business interests over his duty to the public as a candidate.
From his refusal to disclose tax returns (because it might possibly impact his ongoing audit) to his billing for the use of his business facilities to his trip to Scotland in the middle of the campaign (a task which he could certainly have delegated to one of his children), it has become clear that, if elected President, there will be constant conflicts of interest that arise and that we should have no confidence that he would opt to advance the public’s interests over his own.
A brief note on the value of the returns:
So far there is cloud of unreality investing and obscuring the entire Trump phenomenon . For that reason alone the tax returns are of added value because they will contain at least a breath of reality. They might be the only real thing we can know about this very peculiar candidate.
Finally, a reader refers to something that has been in and out of the news during Trump’s campaign:
With regard to Trump’s taxes, he has received the NY State STAR tax rebate for the past two years. This tax reduction is automatically given to anyone making less than $500,000 in reported income... The STAR rebate has not been revoked as far as I've seen (it is granted electronically). Trump is a billionaire claiming a tax credit meant for middle-class New Yorkers, because of depreciation rules for his real-estate holdings. I'm sure that's a big part of why he doesn't release his tax returns.
There is of course one person who could end all this speculation, and that is none other than the man Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Pat Toomey, and a long list of other luminaries think should become president. He’s also the man at the bottom of the list below, re-upped from yesterday.
Post-Nixon presidential and vice-presidential major-party nominees who have agreed to releasetheir tax returns before the election: Gerald Ford (summary statement), Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Geraldine Ferraro, Dan Quayle, Mike Dukakis, Lloyd Bensten, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jack Kemp, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, Mike Pence.
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!]
Even the reference to immigration (“Illegal immigration has badly hurt the employment prospects and cultural standing of black Americans. I cannot see how any serious person could argue otherwise,” [as the Black Trump Supporter wrote]). I happen to agree that immigration (legal and illegal) has hurt the employment of working-class and unskilled Americans, Blacks included. I believe that the broad studies that focus on wages miss the other reasons that employers select low-skilled laborers (working conditions and deference to authority, for example).
But Mr. Douglas doesn’t support his argument with facts, only rhetoric. So, while I can accept his assertion regarding employment (because of my own research and educational background in economics), I nearly spit out my coffee when he mentioned “cultural standing.”
Look, African Americans have a lot of problems in this country and continue to deal with issues of institutionalized racism, individual racism, police brutality, plus all of the other problems shared by the poor. But if someone would like to define “cultural standing” for me and then explain, not only how that standing is low for African Americans but how it is worse since the Civil Rights Era due to unchecked immigration, I am all ears!
Which brings me back to my opening remarks. As I explained to my Spanish friends, you have to understand the depth of Trump’s support in two ways: The first is his exceptional, if unconventional, rhetorical skills and brand management. When I compare him to Berlusconi, they get it immediately.
The second, and this is where I believe Mr. Douglas comes in based solely on what was published in your Note, is that Americans don't “do policy,” by and large, as an electorate. They “do feelings” and “teams.” Sometimes you vote for your team and sometimes you vote against the other team.
Mr. Douglas’s opinions are perfectly valid as opinions. In fact, I suspect we’d agree on more than few things. They are not, however, reasons to support Trump based on anything one could reasonably argue that a Trump presidency would do (see current back-pedaling on Immigration Policy). Rather, they are reasons to support Trump as a sharp stick in the eye of those with whom you’ve disagreed for many years. Maybe you can’t prove them wrong (hell, that would take actual policy work) but you can make them lose. And on November 9th, that will be good enough. On January 20, 2017, however, and for the years after, it won’t nearly be enough.
3. The candidate of the future. The preceding note says that the end of the Trump candidacy won’t be the end of Trumpism. Another reader to similar effect:
I was curious to see where Mr. Trump would take [his campaign]. Unfortunately, he seems to be stuck on neutral. That is unfortunate.
But he epitomizes the future. The Celebrity as candidate. What is unresolved is the neglected portion of poor working-class whites who found a channel. The Republican Party neglected them. They will still be there.
I thought he had a chance if he was able to get 30 percent of the black vote. I thought that was achievable. Now it seems remote.
Maybe the status quo remains. For now. But not much longer. The pivot is being made historically from the statesman/politician to business leadership. The building of corporate transnationalism and the inability of the nation-state to adequately manage this change bodes for severe transformation. I am unsure of how it will play out.
However, anger and frustration is building in the heartland. At least from Nashville, Indianapolis and Tennessee. The less affluent are my clientele. I give them access to a piece of the American Dream. I resell big box stuff.
My clients are the New Americans: Africans from different parts; Latinos, of which I am now adapted as a dual citizen of Costa Rica; and from other parts. I sell to the New Native Americans: natives of all types and parts of the country. And all is not well. The economy is well enough at this moment to keep the lid from popping off. Let the next economic downturn happen, and I am unsure of how it will play out.
4. Take a stand. Earlier this month I quoted a reader who said that stricter measures were needed to shun or ostracize the Vichy Republicans, the people like Paul Ryan or Pat Toomey who beyond question know what is wrong with Donald Trump but who still officially stand with him. In reply I explained why I thought the most sensible thing someone like me could do is simply to lay out the record, making clear who knows what as the campaign unfolds.
At the same time, I wonder if you are entirely satisfied with where your response leaves the issue, since it appears to have some limitations.
For one thing, the idea that supporting Trump will be “be part of [the] record” for Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and others seems really inadequate as a means of motivating them to denounce Trump. Were they to do so, they would risk serious and immediate professional and personal consequences; given the nature of Trump’s supporters, even violent attack would be possible. The prospect of some general taint on their record, with unspecified consequences, is a very weak deterrent.
Certainly Eisenhower, in the case you cited, did not sustain any obvious damage for his cowardice in 1953; he was triumphantly re-elected in 1956 and had an honored retirement.
As well, this concept fails the test of justice. As you and others (such as the Southern Poverty Law Center) have documented, real people are suffering now from Trump’s effects on the country—let alone the potentially world-historical evils that would result from his election. (McCarthy, whom you mention, did not have the nuclear-launch codes.) Yet your concept leaves those who are supporting him, and who are thus complicit in these evils, with no immediate punishment at all.
And finally, deferring a reckoning in this way really seems, with respect, to let those who have so forcefully denounced these scoundrels (the word is not too harsh, given the indictment presented) off the hook. If you are right in describing their conduct as despicable, then they should be publicly despised—and that despisal should be ongoing and constantly reinforced. After all, the fact that other and better people might save the country from the worst results of their bad conduct by defeating Trump on November 8 does not reduce their culpability.
And those most involved in making the case against them would seem to have an obligation, if they take their own words seriously, to lead the continuing effort to shame them, especially since these critics have access to public fora with which to do so.
The mark of dishonor you correctly believe should attach to Ryan, McConnell, and others will not appear on its own, nor will it be applied by God like the fabled mark of Cain. It will take real effort to resist the tendency, on November 9, to “let bygones be bygones.” And those of us who believe, as I do and as you and others seem to imply, that such an attitude would be a real error have to look to you, Michael Gerson, Jennifer Rubin, and others to use your voices to avert it and to continue to hold these people to account. I realize that commentators who take such a position toward figures with major institutional political power risk consequences to themselves; but that would seem to be the price of the stand you and others have so honorably taken.
I hope you will reconsider the approach you outlined on August 12 in favor of a more active position toward those in prominent positions who surely know better, but who are continuing to do nothing to prevent the damage Trump's candidacy is causing, and the far worse damage it threatens in future.
To respond briefly: Yes, I think it contemptible that the likes of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Reince Priebus, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton (along with most incumbent GOP senators); Chris Christie and Mike Pence (along with most incumbent GOP governors); and other people who clearly know better are abetting Trump in this campaign and increasing the chance he might actually win office. In my view, they will always deserve the contempt they are earning with this Vichy-like accommodation—and Republicans and conservatives who have stood against Trump will always deserve respect for their stand (even from those who disagree with them on many other fronts).
But in practical terms, I don’t know what more someone in the press who is opposed to Trump is supposed to do. Does Paul Ryan spend one second worrying about what I think? Does Mitch McConnell spend one nanosecond? Chris Christie might feel bad that his fellow Springsteen fan Jeff Goldberg is calling him one of the “hollow men.” He doesn’t care if I say so.
I made a similar point to this reader, when saying that I would quote his followup. He replied this way:
To be clear: I’m not suggesting that you should take some kind of public lead in a political sense (for example, in trying to remove Trump’s enablers from office).
Rather, I simply hope that you and others who have been so prominent in making the case against the enablers’ behavior should not drop the issue on November 9, regardless of the outcome of the election. If that’s what you mean by “laying out the case in public,” that may be the most you can do.
Fair enough. As I say, it’s 70-plus days until the election, and then a whole national history beginning the next day.
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.
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.
To your credit, you’ve acknowledged that you were badly mistaken when you dismissed Trump’s chances of becoming president. [JF note: see this item, from nearly six months ago.] I remember the blog post you wrote about it. Your reasoning seemed to boil down to the following: “No one fitting this candidate’s profile has ever come close to winning. Therefore he cannot win.” I would have thought that your failed prediction would have left you chastened and at least made you wonder about what else you might be missing about Trump.
Instead, you’ve taken a fairly tone deaf approach in your Trump Time Capsules. Like your latest one about Trump’s “What the Hell Do You Have to Lose?” comments. Illegal immigration has badly hurt the employment prospects and cultural standing of black Americans. I cannot see how any serious person could argue otherwise. Likewise, the victimology that the Democrats have been pushing for more than 50 years has had a deleterious effect on black Americans’ economic and cultural progress.
I’ve seen this firsthand. My parents and the other black West Indians who flooded into New York in the ‘60s and ‘70s came with little more than the clothes on their back. In a fairly short amount of time, however, they had already exceeded the achievements of the native black population. Similar things can be said about the Nigerians who came to the U.S. during those years. Same genetic stock, different mindset, different results.
As for the “total catastrophe” remark that Trump made about the situation black Americans are in, many reasonable people think this is true. And frankly, whether it’s true or not, will blacks make more progress thinking that their situation is horrific and that they really need to improve, or that things are alright and they just need to tweak a few things? In any case, by continuing to harp on Trump’s blunt and imprecise language, you continue to miss the forest for the trees.
I thank Mr. Douglas for his care in making his case. There is more here than I can try to address right now, including the relations (and sometimes tensions) between Caribbean-origin black immigrants and black families who have been in the U.S. for generations or centuries. But to summarize, I will say:
I understand the distinction between talking about Trump the man, and talking about “Trumpism” the phenomenon.
I think there’s been a lot of journalistic attention to the phenomenon, and will be more—up until the election, and thereafter.
I have paid attention to the man himself, because I think his traits are significant in two ways. First, his ignorance and temperamental instability put him outside the range for potential presidents, in my view. Second, I sincerely believe that his demagogic skills have themselves been important in whipping up hostilities that otherwise might not have taken their current form.
I say this on the basis of having reported in a lot of “Trump’s America” over the past three years, and having seen reactions very different from those at a Trump rally. That’s what my wife Deb and I saw most recently in western Kansas, as reported here (most people there will vote for Trump, but they are not furious or exclusionist in the way he is) and also in the challenged industrial town of Erie, as we’ll start reporting this week.
Why am I, personally, hostile to Donald Trump as a public figure? Because the things I value most about our country, and the qualities I most respect in public leaders, are the things he has gone out of his way to attack and demean. I believe that the country, despite its acute and obvious problems, is in an improving rather than deteriorating stage of its history—and that its ability to embrace multitudes and thrive from diversity is its fundamental strength. This is not the Trump vision, and not what a vote for him represents.
That’s all for now. Thanks to Jamie Douglas for his note.
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.
If you grew up without a mature man around—if the men in your life were the emotionally immature type that seems to be increasingly common—and you got your male role models from the media, then yeah, you may think that the measure of a man is how loud he can yell, how much he can make others cower, or how big his junk is.
Those of us who grew up seeing emotionally stable and mature men go about their lives see those types of males for what they are: scared, immature boys who never progressed to true manhood, and are stuck forever in adolescence.
So my diagnosis is exactly the opposite of the author’s; Trump isn’t a “climax of American masculinity, he’s the nadir. He’s the leader of a sub-nation of manchildren for whom “masculinity” is just a set of behaviors to which one clings, with desperation, out of the adolescent’s overwhelming fear of being perceived as weak.
Or as another reader more succinctly puts it, “Trump is a spoiled, petulant, insecure 12-year-old’s idea of ‘manhood.’”
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.
We have all been dismayed by the lack of spine from Ryan, McConnell, et al in standing up against Trump, disavowing him. They have failed that test and history will judge them accordingly.
Let me now posit a new idea going forward: that they stick by him, endure all the criticism, take all the mud thrown their way for the sole purpose of legitimizing Hillary’s win. They can be the ones who come out on election day and say, “we have been behind our candidate through thick and thin, we have supported him throughout, the people have spoken and HRC will be our next President.” They can only make this claim, they can only legitimize her, if they stand by Trump until the end. If they disavow him now, they will be seen as part of the conspiracy of the elites who rigged this election.
Now, of course Trumpkins don’t care about Ryan, McConnell and all the congressional leadership together. It doesn’t matter. There will always be crazies just like there are now who think Obama is a Muslim Kenyan. What matters is that the leadership, the institutions, function and transfer legitimacy to the winner.
President Calderon had no one in AMLO’s party doing that for him. Ryan and McConnell can do their country a great service if they provide that legitimacy. In order to do so, they have to stick with Trump till the end.
For a different perspective on the Ryan-McConnell situation, here’s a reader on the East Coast:
We read now all over the Internet expressions such as one you just made, that Republican leaders who do not dissociate themselves from Donald Trump will “forever share” the “stain” of Trumpism. We see such statements not only from you, but from various right-wing commentators, such as Jennifer Rubin and Michael Gerson.
One wonders, however, what’s really meant. “Forever” is a very long time. Suppose it is November 9, 2016 and Trump has lost heavily, the Democrats have taken the Senate, but the Republicans have kept the House—led by the “forever stained” Paul Ryan. What do you and others, and our major institutions, then do?
Do you refuse to be part of any public meeting at which Trump supporters are present? Do you continue to denounce them “forever” in your columns? Do you and others call for them to be treated as pariahs, as your language would imply—and if you do, is there any likelihood that this will occur?
In short, what sanctions do you see being applied, by anyone, to Trump’s enablers and supporters? And if no effective sanctions are likely, then what does all this denunciatory language really amount to?
Fair questions. Short answer: No shunning or special status or permanent asterisk. But this is one more choice that will be remembered.
Most people remember who voted which way about the Iraq war. Historians remember who stood where during the civil rights movement—and that, for instance, Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas felt he had to balance his “left-wing” criticism of the Vietnam war with right-wing votes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
As President, Dwight Eisenhower finally turned on Joe McCarthy when McCarthy over-reached and began criticizing Ike’s own beloved Army as a den of sedition. (This was the prelude to the famous “have you no sense of decency” showdown between McCarthy and Joseph Welch.) But until then Eisenhower notably looked the other way about McCarthy’s smears. A National Archives essay on “Eisenhower and the Red Menace” describes a memo Eisenhower got from White House staffers at the end of 1953:
Written by two relatively junior staff aides, Stanley Rumbough and Charles Masterton, the memorandum highlighted the costs of appeasing McCarthy and called on the President to take a more openly critical stance on McCarthy. Eisenhower’s failure to challenge or repudiate McCarthy, Rumbough and Masterton wrote, conveyed the impression that he was weak. Taking McCarthy on directly, they argued, might entail some political costs, notably in relations with Congress. But this possible problem would be outweighed by political gains as the public perceived Ike as a “fighter.”
Eisenhower, they noted, held high ground. “He can appeal to the people now as a popular leader who has been attacked. Further, in speaking out against McCarthyism he is on the side of the angels. He can answer McCarthyism in the spirit of fair play and in the very words of the founding fathers, the Bill of Rights, Washington and Lincoln.”
Eisenhower didn’t act that way at the time; that’s one part of a record that is (in my view) generally very admirable. What Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are doing now will be part of their record—although, as Jorge Guajardo suggests, there could be a way they could turn this into a plus.
As I type this, Donald Trump is about to speak in Erie, Pennsylvania. By chance, Deb and I visited there briefly last month and are returning for a more serious stint of reporting next week. One of the things we’ll consider is the comparison between Erie as Trump is describing it and how people there see themselves.
As WeWork crashes and Uber bleeds cash, the consumer-tech gold rush may be coming to an end.
Several weeks ago, I met up with a friend in New York who suggested we grab a bite at a Scottish bar in the West Village. He had booked the table through something called Seated, a restaurant app that pays users who make reservations on the platform. We ordered two cocktails each, along with some food. And in exchange for the hard labor of drinking whiskey, the app awarded us $30 in credits redeemable at a variety of retailers.
I am never offended by freebies. But this arrangement seemed almost obscenely generous. To throw cash at people every time they walk into a restaurant does not sound like a business. It sounds like a plot to lose money as fast as possible—or to provide New Yorkers, who are constantly dining out, with a kind of minimum basic income.
Our unpredictable and overburdened schedules are taking a dire toll on American society.
Just under a century ago, the Soviet Union embarked on one of the strangest attempts to reshape the common calendar that has ever been undertaken. As Joseph Stalin raced to turn an agricultural backwater into an industrialized nation, his government downsized the week from seven to five days. Saturday and Sunday were abolished.
In place of the weekend, a new system of respite was introduced in 1929. The government divided workers into five groups, and assigned each to a different day off. On any given day, four-fifths of the proletariat would show up to their factories and work while the other fifth rested. Each laborer received a colored slip of paper—yellow, orange, red, purple, or green—that signified his or her group. The staggered schedule was known as nepreryvka, or the “continuous workweek,” since production never stopped.
The U.S. financial system is powerful, but not so powerful that it can swiftly stop a military assault in its tracks.
Turkey had to have seen this coming.
Granted, it didn’t feature in the phone call last week where Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan informed his American counterpart of his intent to launch an offensive against the Kurds in northeastern Syria, resulting in the retreat of U.S. forces from the region; the advance of Syrian, Russian, and Turkish forces into the void; the flight of tens of thousands of civilians; and the stirrings of a reborn Islamic State.
But the morning after the call, the threat to “totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey” cropped up like clockwork on Twitter, Donald Trump’s preferred venue for such taunts. It was a predictable response from a president who, over the past three years, has repeatedly demonstrated resistance to using force and skepticism about any diplomatic endeavor that doesn’t involve his personal negotiating skills. In economic sanctions he has found a sweet spot between the slog of diplomacy and the steep price of military action. They satisfy his hankering for economic leverage that can be ratcheted up and down as he pursues deals. In the case of Turkey’s incursion into Syria, however, the hard limits of that happy medium are currently on vivid display.
Humiliating his own Cabinet secretaries was bad. Putting faithful American allies in harm’s way is far worse.
President Donald Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds stung deeply. “They trusted us and we broke that trust. It’s a stain on the American conscience.” These, according to The New York Times, are the searing words of an Army officer who has worked alongside the Kurds in northern Syria.
History’s best marathoner has broken a mythical time barrier. But it doesn’t count as a world record.
Updated at 2:15 p.m. ET on October 13, 2019.
Early yesterday morning, in a misty park in Vienna, Eliud Kipchoge ran a marathon in less than two hours. His time, 1:59:40, is the fastest any runner has ever covered 26.2 miles. Kipchoge carved two minutes off his own world record and became the first marathoner to break the two-hour barrier.
At the event, branded the INEOS 1:59 Challenge, the performance was heralded as a radical, historic leap, his “Neil Armstrong moment,” as one announcer said. Indeed, Kipchoge himself—a soft-spoken 34-year-old Kenyan who dulls the pain of distance running by smiling mid-competition—has repeatedly equated his feat to reaching the moon. That comparison is audacious on the scale of human achievement, but in the galaxy of running, it might actually be an understatement. Running’s original moon landing, the sub-four-minute mile, took place back in 1954. Yesterday, Kipchoge launched running to Mars.
What the Amazon founder and CEO wants for his empire and himself, and what that means for the rest of us.
Where in the pantheon of American commercial titans does Jeffrey Bezos belong? Andrew Carnegie’s hearths forged the steel that became the skeleton of the railroad and the city. John D. Rockefeller refined 90 percent of American oil, which supplied the pre-electric nation with light. Bill Gates created a program that was considered a prerequisite for turning on a computer.
At 55, Bezos has never dominated a major market as thoroughly as any of these forebears, and while he is presently the richest man on the planet, he has less wealth than Gates did at his zenith. Yet Rockefeller largely contented himself with oil wells, pump stations, and railcars; Gates’s fortune depended on an operating system. The scope of the empire the founder and CEO of Amazon has built is wider. Indeed, it is without precedent in the long history of American capitalism.
People want to cook and eat together. Modern life has other plans.
Right now, a box of food from a meal-kit company is probably moldering in my apartment building’s mail room. I haven’t been down there in a few days, so maybe there isn’t one at this very moment. But more than two years of living in this building has taught me there’s basically always at least one box, forgotten and slightly stinky. When I visit friends, I often walk past a similar scene next to their elevators: cartons from Blue Apron or HelloFresh, waiting to find out if they’ll ever become the dinners they were meant to be.
Forgetting you mail-ordered a bespoke set of ingredients for a selection of restaurant-style recipes is a luxurious predicament to be in, but the frequency with which those meal kits seem to be abandoned points to the very same problem they were invented to fix: Consumer surveys have found that most people who buy meal kits do so in hopes of saving time. As it turns out, it takes time to unpack, cook, and clean up after a meal-kit dinner, too.
China is supposed to be savvy. So why is it throwing a fit about a tweet, an app, and a gamer in a mask in the absence of any real threat?
The Hong Kong protests have entered a fifth month, a longevity that might have been hard to predict at the outset. The protests were sparked in reaction to an extradition bill that protesters feared would mean turning over dissidents to mainland China, but have turned into a broad movement over fears that liberties under the “one country, two systems” promised when the United Kingdom turned over its colony to China would be trampled.
Inevitably, this brought the Chinese government at into conflict with Western companies that do business with China. Recently, the Chinese government has started flexing its muscles, going so far as to pressure Western companies to censor their own employees. Many companies, even big ones, are already caving, including Apple, the NBA, and the gaming company Blizzard Entertainment.
It goes beyond the NBA—U.S. companies doing business in China are hamstrung by the country’s whims.
From the late 19th century up to World War II, Americans were seized with the idea of transforming China into a Christian, capitalist America on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
The word “plastic” pops up again and again in American statements about China from that era. China is “plastic” in the hands of “strong and capable Westerners,” announced President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. “China has become plastic after centuries of rigid conventionalism,”declared Selskar M. Gunn, a vice president of the Rockefeller Foundation, in May 1933.
But from the beginning, Americans were also afraid that China — or the Chinese — would change them, too. In 1870, following the Civil War, Congress limited naturalization to whites and blacks. Later, the United States tried to inoculate itself against the influence of the Chinese by banning many of them from America’s shores. Starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the U.S. Congress passed a series of racist immigration laws which would not be significantly modified until World War II, when China was an ally in America’s fight against Japan. It looked bad for the US to deny Chinese the right to travel in America while Chinese under American command were dying on Asian battlefields.
Twelve candidates crowded onto the stage, but impeachment remains the biggest story in politics.
Give the fourth Democratic presidential debate its due: Yes, it was interminably long, but it was also terminally boring.
There are several reasons the debate never really took off, but the central problem was that each of the candidates is seeking to excite the Democratic base, and right now the thing that is most exciting to Democrats is impeaching Donald Trump.
This led to a disorienting evening. There’s a strong likelihood that at some point between now and November 2020, the House of Representatives will impeach the president of the United States, and yet the debate was barely different from the three that preceded the start of a serious impeachment inquiry in late September.
Although the first question of the night focused on impeachment, the moderators and candidates quickly moved on, barely mentioning it over the rest of the three hours of debate. In those opening moments, Senator Amy Klobuchar defended the inquiry against charges that it’s a distraction.